Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Lobsterthermidor reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned)

Page: Charles II of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12 July 2018 [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4 March #1 [2]
2. 4 March #2 [3]
3. 4 May #1 [4]
4. 4 May #2 [5]
5. 4 May #3 [6]
6. 4 May #4 [7]

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

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

Comments:

• So, two highly established editors, clean records, no 3RR vios. Discussion via edit summaries. Disagreement is over the interpretation of a source, an archaic book which describes an anecdote in which Charles went to the room of a "woman he admired". Lobster contends that the archaic wording of the source is suggesting that she was a "probable mistress", which I don't think is particularly unreasonable, while DrKay contends rather straightforwardly that the source does not explicitly make that claim, which seems equally reasonable. However DrKay falls back on WP:OR, which states rather unequivocally that independent "analysis" of a source is prohibited. I don't think Lobster's addition is unreasonable or in bad faith, but Kay's reversions seem to be in line with the overarching policy guidance. At the minimum, Lobster should be able to understand this and proceed to DR, rather than simply edit warring. At the same time, Dr Kay did not opt for direct engagement either, instead issuing templated warnings for "disruptive editing", which seems a bit unreasonable. @Lobsterthermidor: can I simply ask you to self-revert and engage in discussion and dispute resolution? I don't particularly want to take any action against an editor who I should be able to trust to self-correct on their own. Regardless of DrKay's less-than-ideal approach, he has now stated his objection on the talk page, and there should be no reason that you can not engage going forward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In DrKay's favour see the discussions at Talk:Francis Walsingham which immediately preceded the edits made on this article. My own attempts to help Lobsterthermidor abide by Wikipedia's standards date back to 2012 and 2013, with much more interaction from then up to 2016. There are several notices about edit warring and tendentious edits on his talk page.  —SMALLJIM  13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Just a heads up folks, the user who chipped in last is well known to me as someone who is totally obsessed with me and my work (nobody else is), and has been so for a about ten years, following a huge row which went to Admin noticeboard ([[10]]), in which we were both told to avoid each other, in the adjudication by Admin Kim, who identified a personal animosity. (resolved on 9 November 2013 by Admin Kim Dent-Brown who closed the very lengthy and bitter dispute with the following words: "The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing".) I have been following that very wise advice, to the letter, sadly he has not. I have never been anywhere near a single one of his articles (knowingly) for many years. In fact I think I have only edited one of his articles, about 10 years ago. He has continued obsessively to pursue me (just look at his edit history, he's literally been targetting my work almost exclusively from 14 March 2020 to 5 April, picking me up on my spelling (example snarky comment "He did not have a middle initial of 'I', as far as we know"[11]), and spouting every WP guideline available at me. In fact his whole WP existence since 14 March 2020 has been in pursuing me and my work. That's creepy. (I just found that out now when I looked at his edit history, this is how it works, he goes for a few months without a peep then pops up like a rash all over my talk page and recent contributions). My policy has been to ignore him completely, as Kim suggested, but he seems desperate to continue his personal and unpleasant targetting of me and my work. My talk page over the past decade is probably filled 25% by him (it seems like that, possibly an exaggeration). When that treatment didn't elicit a reply he posted a barn-star on my talk page, trying to get me to respond that way. Very creepy. I ignored it. As I said I have not communicated with him for many years, that's my policy, it's just like the weather, but he seems desperate to establish a connection (lots of invitations to join him on various talk pages, etc.) It's very very creepy. I'm not allowed to say "stalking" on WP, but that's what it is. He clearly watches my contribs log closely as when I do get into a (very rare) edit disagreement, he pops up like magic (exactly as he has done here) to throw rocks at me. I can name a dozen occasions when he has done this exact thing, pops up out of the blue and adds a negative comment - understatement, he takes over the role of cheerleader against me. So I will not be engaging with this person here or anywhere else. I deem his "major edits" on my work as disruptive editing. He has opened up three or four edit controversies with me in the past two days, that's how he has spent 100% of his time on WP.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Copied from my talk page, post by this person, 13:39, 14 November 2013, under heading "Apology"[12]: Lobsterthermidor, I want to apologise for that second revert to Dunsland and for the above warning that I issued. A temporary loss of my normal imperturbability caused me to manage the situation badly. I'm sorry – it won't happen again. If you want to revert Dunsland back to your version, I'll be happy to work on improving it with you, calling on WP:3O if appropriate. Going forward, since the editors who've seen our disagreements have shown little interest in my concern for accuracy in WP's articles, there seems to be no point in continuing to review your edits and running the risk of causing further discord. So although I propose to tidy up some of the outstanding issues, I'll otherwise only deal with anything that I happen across during routine editing. In other words you can rejoice that the "two year vexatious edit war with Smalljim, who has developed a creepy habit of following him around WP" has ended. Sadly he has just continued his old behaviour - for the last 7 years.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Swarm, the above comment of mine is a digression (a necessary one) from this matter. I think that with regard to this source quoted by me, it is important to understand the tone of an antiquated commentator. That's not OR or interpretation, it's understanding what the source is actually communicating. Perhaps it requires some WP:Competence in reading antiquated texts, using antiquated sources requires an understanding of antiquated language. It's still a valid source. He's speaking to a sophisticated audience who understand that when a king renown for being as libidinous as his best stallion knocks at the door of a lady "whom he much admires" (note "much" - how many more hints does he have to give) and finds her in a compromising position (singing about said randy stallion and comparing him to randy owner) then smiles sweetly at her, the sequel is some form of sexual interaction. It does not require to be spelled out, indeed it would be tedious and tiresome of him to have done so. This is sophisticated writing, it's not a dull and dry modern phd thesis. If she had rejected his advances, that would have been the story. So I would contend that WP does not order a slavish and robotic interpretation of sources, but rather an intelligent one - and that's no intended slight to the good Doctor. This author was telling his readers in a refined and antiquated manner about an amusing royal tryst. That does not make the lady concerned an "official mistress" like the Duchess of Portsmouth, but certainly makes her a "love interest", which equates to "probable mistress". I'm not even sure there's a definition for "mistress", does sexual intercourse have to have occurred, or is a mere flirtation adequate to qualify? I suspect the reason Mrs Holford has not been picked up by the main biographers of C II is that it is a very obscure reference, a mere footnote, but that does not make it invalid as a source - it was later picked up and elaborated upon elsewhere. I would say the importance of this addition is not to the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, but it's just a bit of fun and amusement, above the level of trivia I would suggest, and worthy of a mention in a list of "probable mistresses". The reader can make his own mind up, we've brought her to his attention. In conclusion, I would be very happy to engage going forward as you suggest, in the talk page, or possibly just let the matter drop entirely - when you have to argue your case for every word of an addition to be accepted, it becomes wearysome.Lobsterthermidor (talk)
        • Swarm, thank you for your suggestion, I think you have understood this issue with great clarity. So to make my response clearer, on closer reading of your conclusion, I am very happy to to self-revert and engage in discussion on the talk page, and will do that now.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC) PS already done by someone else.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lobsterthermidor is now refusing to help improve Thomas Walsingham (died 1457), characterising my edits as disruptive [13] [14] [15] and ignoring the opportunity to discuss on the talk page.  —SMALLJIM  13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whichever admin closes this ought to make sure that a good-quality RfC gets opened to address the matters in dispute. For example, to answer the question whether Mrs Holford ought to be listed under the heading "other probable mistresses" of Charles II. At first glance, the evidence seems weak, but User:Lobsterthermidor could make his case in the RfC and see if others will support it. (Is this connection mentioned by modern secondary sources, a question raised by Ealdgyth?) Above, Lobsterthermidor opposes a "slavish and robotic interpretation of sources" but that's what some people might think to be required by WP:V. There is an additional dispute about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) but I'd recommend a separate AN3 complaint by User:Smalljim if they want to pursue it. The interpersonal negative comments above (like "someone who is totally obsessed with me") suggest to me that the parties aren't going to solve this easily on their own. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lobsterthermidor is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Charles II of England or try to re-add the Mrs Holford anecdote unless they have obtained a prior consensus for it on the article talk page. No ruling on the dispute about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457). That page may need its own report. Before filing one, consider opening an RfC on the talk page. RfCs can reach binding conclusions. Exhorting each other to behave better is not getting any results. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:37.152.231.22 reported by User:Cryptic Canadian (Result: Warned)

Page

Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954917372 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) no consensus for violating policies and guidelines. Now stop trashing my work just for your own perverse kicks"
2. 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954915370 by PamD (talk) I really did not expect that after I carefully went through the article and fixed its serious failings, three separate people would decide to trash all my work for no reason at all."
3. 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954909421 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)"
4. 22:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "rv vandal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given here but reverted by user. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That really is quite something. I found an article with serious problems, and I spent some time carefully fixing them. I imagined that if anyone noticed, they would be pleased that a poor article was now better. But no! Instead, three people have simply trashed my work entirely, without any hint of an explanation. And now a fourth person has brought this up here. That is some really ridiculous behaviour. No wonder a lot of articles are in a bad way, if this is how you react to people improving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.231.22 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I actually think this IP editor has been trying to make some helpful, good faith edits which do, genuinely, improve the article. My thanks to them. But I'm so sorry to see that they've gone about interacting with us all in quite the wrong way, and have got into edit warring and even a bit of swearing. If everyone can first use the talk page to discuss and agree on smaller, more discrete changes - and none of us get on our 'high horses' we can all contribute to making improvements. The IP user could certainly be blocked for edit warring -which is horribly disruptive - but I think their views on improving the article are worth hearing. Please, IP, can you undertake to discuss changes on the talk page because I feel you have views that are worth us listening to. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

They are up to 6 reverts now (with some personal attacks tossed in); I'd block them myself if I wasn't involved as one of the editors who reverted them. Yes, there are some MOS questions, but the MOS guidelines do do not have the "bright line" that our 3RR policy does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Holy hell, what the hell is going on here? Agree with Nick 100%, I see nothing to indicate that the IP's edits are anything other than good faith, non-disruptive improvements, nor any specific objections raised at all. Restoring to "consensus version" or "stable version" is bullshit, there's no such thing, see WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. GAs are promoted by one person, and GA status does not represent a consensus that an article is not to not be edited going forward. If a GA is changed, and you think it no longer qualifies as a GA, you file a GAR, or articulate the specific reasons when you revert, you don't simply "lock down" an article because it's a GA, what the hell. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold editing without citing any specific objections is disruptive editing. The IP is 100% correct in saying "have the fucking courtesy to explain yourself". I'm honestly embarrassed by this, and I deeply apologize to this IP user for the treatment they're receiving. I would not block an editor for this in a thousand years, come on, you guys. Jamie you're a great admin and I 100% respect you but surely you must know that this is wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Block them all(except Britishfinance) for one day. The IP has been uncivil(assuming vandalism, this edit summary) and violated 3RR; Jamie, PamD and David Biddulph have been edit-warring over a content dispute and given policy-deficient reasons for their reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint, from an account with little evidence of serious contribution to the encyclopaedia - 224 article edits since 2016, of which 70% are reverts. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments of User:Swarm. I am disappointed to see that User:Ohnoitsjamie did not bother to respond to them. I note again that four different people restored grammar and style errors to the article, falsely claiming "consensus" for this. There can obviously never be a consensus for the concept of not using correct grammar. Not one of the four reverters outlined any serious reason for their actions, nor any specific objection to any of my edits, either at the time or since. The lack of input here or on the article talk page from any of the four is very telling. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:37.152.231.22 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Previous commenters indicate that others were too quick to doubt the IP's good faith, but the IP did break 3RR on 4 May and they reverted again on 7 May while this report was open. The IP has freely handed out abuse in their edit summaries: "Now stop trashing my work just for your own perverse kicks". Others who reverted the IP didn't always give good reasons. I hope this won't go on much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not and do not need a prior consensus to fix incorrect grammar. I have not "freely handed out abuse". And it's incorrect to say those who attacked my work "didn't always give good reasons"; they never did so. They have completely ignored this discussion which included some specific criticism of their actions. They have posted nothing on the article talk page to justify their behaviour. They have posted nothing on my talk page. And yet, in response to all that, I am the one who gets "warned"? 37.152.231.22 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the IP (who is obviously familiar with WP) has reverted again without consensus. I will write a longer note on the article talk page, but while some of the edits are grammar (and can be kept), most of the edits are the IP's own view on format and style, which other editors have used throughout the article. Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I restored my fixes to incorrect grammar and formatting two days ago. The user has apparently only just noticed, and has now simply vandalised the article, again. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have left a description on the talk page of your edits - some are grammer and I restored, however, many are not grammar and either change a format that other editors had employed for readers, or changed the terms used by the reference books into terms that you perferred. You have not reverted at least 5 times against several editors. Britishfinance (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You didn't restore anything. You just trashed my work in its entirety, yet again. Ad I certainly did not change any terms used by reference books. Making false claims about what I have done is not useful.

This, I note, is the first thing in all of this that you have addressed to me. You should have tried communicating directly five days ago. This would have been a lot less unpleasant had you done so. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just making false statements. Per the article talk page, anybody can compare the diffs to show that I kept some of your edits which I could support (e.g. grammar, phrasing), but not others (e.g. changing definitions, changing helpfil formats others had built), which I could not support. You have just reverted back to your non-consensus version again, and claimed that nobody will discuss with you. The reality is that you are listening to nobody but willing to make false statements to support your position. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Diff between article before I edited it at all, and your last version. Why even bother to pretend that you kept some of my edits? That's just bizarre. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the IP had reverted so quickly (6th time), that my review of their edits (listed out in the talk page here) was not saved. Again, that is the problem with active edit warring and enforcing their own view above the attempts of others to collaborate. There is little point in progressing here. Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The mediawiki software doesn't work like that. It is impossible for my edit to have prevented your edit from saving without you realising. Your repeated trashing of my work in its entirety, while pretending not to have done so, is not a good faith attempt to collaborate. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that Talk:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles#Courtesy gives the account of my attempts to collaborate and even go through your edits one-by-one (which, because you re-reverted from the consensus version so quickly, I could not save, but are documented in the Review of Edits on the Talk Page). Your repeated reversion of any of your changes (even though many have nothing to do with grammar or even MOS), show that you are not interested in collaboration? 11:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The user lies, again and again, falsely claiming that my edit somehow prevented theirs from saving. They have repeatedly made false claims about what my edits did. And they have yet to state a single policy or guideline which my edits did not follow. This is so childish! 37.152.231.22 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The review of changes lists the issues with several of your edits. However, you just ignore any attempt to discuss these and revert (6 times now) every editor's attempt to revert you, and claim lies? NOt a good way to behave on Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to state a single policy or guideline which my edits did not follow. You trashed them in their entirety, then tried to pretend you hadn't. You lied about what my edits did. You are still lying. It is so, so childish. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now blocked for ongoing disruption and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the block; while some of the edits were fine (and I noted that Britishfinance has reinstated some of them), the IP's approach hostile from the beginning, and that hostility has not abated. Had they first gone to the talk page and said, "hey, can we discuss why my edits were removed" instead of aggressively edit-warring with multiple editors about it, we wouldn't be here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Urabura reported by User:The4lines (Result: Warned / now blocked for a different reason)

Page

Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955032202 by Oliszydlowski (talk) You don't know the meaning of the word vandalism, so don't use it!"
2. 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955030112 by Oliszydlowski (talk) I also informed you and you ignore her too."
3. 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955028283 by Oliszydlowski (talk) Fourth warning. This is an article about the history of Poland"
4. 15:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955027170 by Oliszydlowski (talk)"
5. 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth */"
6. 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955026026 by Oliszydlowski (talk) important in my opinion"
7. 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954869282 by Oliszydlowski (talk) 1611 - from the period!!!"
8. 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "There is only one such position in Poland, so important information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[16]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

N/A

Comments:

• Comment I don't see any reverts after the warning for 3RR was given. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  (Hi C.Fred, the user doesn't seem to need another warning; they have been blocked twice for violating the three revert rule before.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Urabura is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Poland unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• User has been blocked for one week for personal attacks and/or harassment by Bishonen, 2020-05-07T00:44:29, regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_and_continous_vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Rathfelder (Result: )

Page: Health Service Journal
User being reported: User:Erzan

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:82.3.47.254 reported by User:Megainek (Result: )

Page: Diane Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.3.47.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Lane&oldid=955154813

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]

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

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

Comments:
Anon user keeps adding back "Oscar nominated" to first sentence without explanation despite this being discouraged per style guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#On-going_projects/to_do_lists. Also done on List of Diane Lane performances.

User:122.148.227.2 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Jillian Lauren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.148.227.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]
5. [35]
6. [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Comments: WP:BLP issue as well. I was not involved in the editing of the article but got involved in the dispute when I answered the edit request that the user opened on the article’s talk page. The page had been semi-protected because of their edit warring, but they continued to seek the change by opening an edit request and reopening it after I closed it. I explained myself thoroughly on the article’s and the user’s talk pages. The user responded with repeated personal attacks. I made the mistake of telling the user to “calm down” at one point; I know that was a bad idea and I won’t do it again. It seems abundantly clear based on the user’s remarks, however, that they will attempt to change the page again once the semi-protection lifts. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add though that the editor with the IP is correct as she did write a memoir in which she states she was a call girl and a high end prostitute. However, this was gone about all wrong with all the back and forth and impatience of the editor. https://books.google.com/books/about/Some_Girls.html?id=Rb6MDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: I don’t doubt it. But finding out who’s “right” is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I know nothing about the article and haven’t edited it. I think action should be taken against this editor because they reverted all of their reverted edits, responded with hostility and personal attacks to warnings by multiple editors, and abused the {{Edit request}} template in an attempt to circumvent the page protection. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: - Most definitely. I was not contesting that in the least hence the "gone about the wrong way" statement I made :) I am in your court on this one :) Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Thanks. I thought you were an admin making a decision. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not blocked, the page is already protected and the editor is an IP. Honestly, While the editor was warned, editors placed successive warnings without at all engaging with the IP's suggestions. I'm going to try giving an additional explanation and hope that it can help clear things up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The page was protected by the other editor engaged in the edit war, Materialscientist. Wouldn't that be a WP:COI issue? Given the IP's agressive behavior on the article's and their talk page, it seems that it would more appropriate to block the user rather than to protect the page. I tried very hard to explain why the editors were reverting this user's edits. I don't see any evidence that the page needs protection from anyone else. Thanks for your consideration. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, blocking IPs is discouraged because they're often shared, and is used only when necessary to prevent disruption across multiple articles or long-term abuse. The editor hasn't shown any inclination toward edit warring elsewhere, so the block would need to be longer than a week to be anything other than punitive, and that would be excessive for what is likely a first time offense. While you did try to explain things, you did so with some aggressive looking template icons. More importantly, you only got to the scene after other editors responded to IP's comments with increasingly aggressive warning templates without engaging with their arguments. This is understandable behavior as well, because IP's edits tripped vandalism filters and involved adding the word "prostitute" without an additional citation to the article, even if in this case it appears like that may not be a real BLP violation. I think it was worthwhile to try to give one more solid explanation of why what they did was inappropriate, coming from an uninvolved editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks, that's good enough for me. I didn't understand why the other editor had protected the page instead of blocking the user. My concern stemmed from the use of the {{edit request}} template as a way to circumvent the page protection, especially when the editor re-opened the request after I closed it. Based on how you've explained it, I can see how blocking IPs is discouraged, though. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Philogik reported by User:Rosguill (Result: one week, partial)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [48]

Comments:
Philogik has repeatedly attempted to restore their bold edit over clear objections from two other editors expressed both in edit summaries and on the user's talk page. They've also been calling both me and Ifnord a vandal, despite repeated polite explanations of why that's both incorrect and improper. I would take action myself, but am involved at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 12:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mushuukyou reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: one week, partial)

Page

Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 18:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly on their talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 22:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AntonSamuel reported by User:MehmetFarukSahin (Result: no violation)

Page: 12 articles
User being reported: AntonSamuel (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: [[49]] [[50]] [[51]] [[52]] [[53]] [[54]] [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]] [[60]] [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

Reported user has violated 1RR in 12 separate articles in a day and refuses to self revert. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to fill the Previous version reverted to parameter. You can't leave it blank. I want you to demonstrate that the first edits were not bold edits but that they, in fact, constitute reverts. El_C 22:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll expain the issue in summary here (Much of what is written here is also mentioned on the talk page of MehmetFarukSahin and the Rojava article): This is an issue centering around a map that is used to display the administrative divisions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava) Old map & New map. I reverted these multiple edits by this user since he removed the new map from all pages where it was in use without sufficient reason or using the Rojava talk page first. I wrote an explanation regarding why I did this on his talk page There has been a recent issue with the user that added the 50/50 paint to the map (both the old map and the new) on Wikimedia Commons: [75], this user (Bill497) is blocked on Wikipedia and tried to canvass Wikipedia users using his talk page on Wikimedia Commmons to change the map. I brought up the issue about the map on the talk page of the Rojava article a while ago. The map of the administrative divisions of the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria (Rojava) is a map displaying the civilian administration of the region, relevant for Wikipedia pages dealing with the civilian administration of the region. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A day ago, is not a while ago. Please give some time for consensus to build. Also, this is not the place for socking claims. Please don't do so again elsewhere, except in its designated venue — the place to address that is SPI. El_C 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I raised the topic first on the 6th of April: [76], not a day ago. Or did you mean something else? Regarding the canvassing issue, I wasn't sure whether or not I should mention it since it's such a special situation with a blocked Wikipedia user utilizing Wikipedia Commons to canvass and thought it was relevant for the discussion since the edits came so close to the issue on Wikimedia Commons. But I'll be sure to bring the subject of canvassing and sockpuppetry up it in its proper place in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. That's my bad for misreading. El_C 10:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Self revert the report Looks like the user was boldly editing rather than reverting. Nevertheless I will be filing a new report since the user made an exact revert in the exact articles a few minutes ago. MehmetFarukSahin (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Please don't close your own report. Only uninvolved admins can close reports. As for the new claim of another series of reverts, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I don't see it. El_C 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:79.66.100.194 and User:81.105.38.184 reported by User:Ed6767 (Result: Partial blocked from page for 1yr)

Page

Hind Rattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955460805 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
2. 22:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955454016 by Ed6767 (talk) (the added information is correct and it should not be removed)"
3. 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955402140 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
4. 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955393461 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
5. 14:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955377758 by 86.2.214.153 (talk)"
6. 09:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955276084 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) to 09:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955166923 by 86.2.214.153 (talk)"
   2. 09:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 08:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955100000 by 81.105.38.184 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RedWarn)"
2. 22:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Generic warning (for template series missing level 4) (RedWarn)"
3. 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "New message (RedWarn)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Again, related, constant back/forth Ed6767 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked All of the IPs edits (well, reverts) have been to this article so I have given them a lengthy block from it. I have watchlisted the page in case they IP hop. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:24.248.230.65 reported by User:EditorEricMiller (Result: No violation )

Page: Daniel Barwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.248.230.65 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Comments: < I have never warned anyone for the three revert rule, so I hope I have done it correctly for an anonymous user. The anonymous user I am reporting edited the page 4 times on May 2 (six times in a 48 hour period), all negatively, and the IP address history is, with one exception, entirely negative edits to this specific page. I used the talk function to ask the user to notify the user of the rule violation and asked him/her to voluntarily restore the page. No response. EditorEricMiller (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC) />

• No violation Even though the edits are removing information, as they are consecutive they only count as a single edit. See 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". Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:Kthxbay (Result: Nom blocked)

Page: The Great Gama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments: I tried to reason with this user on talk page of The Great Gama but they blatantly removed the referenced content and reverted my edits. Previously they disrupted the article on multiple IP addresses for more than dozen of times here [85], here [86] and here [87] to mention a few. Once the article is semi protected, they have been forced to come out of hiding and started edit war. The Great Gama lived in Pakistan and also buried there. His grand daughter was the first lady of Pakistan and I provided reliable references also but they didn't adhere and it's pertinent to mention that they have previously blocked for edit warring.-Kthxbay (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)}}

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of indefinite Lourdes 10:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Killarnee reported by User:BohrBrain (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

I'm really not sure how any of this works, but I have made useful contributions to the Wikipedia page "Isaiah 49" and "Isaiah 53". Despite this, my contributions have been trashed and called "vandalism" instead. I would like my contributions placed back. Thank you.

• Wrong venue? User appears to be Special:Contributions/72.94.36.233; the content added appears to be partially WP:OR based on interpretation of the primary source; partly addition of some form of sourced content (ex. a ref added here). @BohrBrain: Tried discussing your suggested changes on the talk pages of the concerned articles? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporting editor has failed to show any diffs where a violation of 3RR has taken place. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tal1962 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Partial block)

Page

Fanny Cradock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tal1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[88]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TELEVISION */"
2. 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 08:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 07:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TV personality */ DO NOT REMOVED. I will keep adding it back until you cease."
5. 07:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* TV personality */ Added TV Appearances"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Edit warring notice.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Two discussions on talk, no participation.

Comments:

There ae multiple discussions tking place (which Tal1962 effectively forced by their additions of material)--Talk:Fanny_Cradock#Works_of_Fanny_Cradock, and an RfC, Talk:Fanny_Cradock#RfC_on_the_placement_of_her_television_appearances, but neither of which has TAL1962 has joined. He has, however, carried on adding the disputed material. Edit summaries such as DO NOT REMOVED. I will keep adding it back until you cease do not inspire confidence, and nor does the fact that, instead of stopping the addition of disputed material, they have increased it exponentially. serial ^# 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here

Editor was warned on article and own talk page but has so far not attempted to address other editor's concerns despite being reverted by multiple different editors. @Martinevans123:@Ssilvers:@SchroCat:: pinging for good form. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor does the comments from the other editor inspire confidence. He DELETED information, which is tantamount to vandalism, without discussing it before doing so. That editor has no more special privilege to delete useful and valid information than I do. --Tal1962 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tal1962: Please take a look at the manner this should be done, more precisely "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained in edit summary, on my talk page, on your talk page and on the article talk page, the information has not been removed, it has been moved. I don't know how many times I have pointed you to Works of Fanny Cradock, where all the information is present, sourced and properly formatted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of a bold edit. It is a question of useful and cited information being removed. That is vandalism. The user did not leave any comments as to why removed it. They also created an "works" page when they did this, but the page has multiple issues and does not include about half of the data. Tal1962 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tal1962: Your edits have been challenged by multiple others. How it works in Wikipedia is if we disagree we go back to the last stable version and discuss it calmly and politely on the talk page, which you have so far failed to do despite repeated invitations to do so... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The edits were not challenged. The information, which I took great time and effort to ensure was correct, was DELETED without discussion. You appear to be ignoring this fact which is incredulous to me. Wiki is not about competition but information. I stopped communicating when that user became rude.Tal1962 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My original content was DELETED despite being cited properly. This user appears to like to deleted things without discussion which is why I reacted as I did. The page he created has issues and also appears to me to be pointless because their reason for creating is is that it is "easier" for users. I disagree. Nevertheless, it would be one thing if the MOVED the data I have compiled to that secondary article. They did not. The simply included what they appear to find useful and deleted the rest. Tal1962 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from wrong section 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sections had been there for at least a year as I am the one who created them. The other user did not move them, but deleted and only created another article with some of that information. And in doing so got some of it wrong.Tal1962 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong wrong. You added poorly formatted, unsourced rubbish. The new article is properly sourced and properly formatted. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, that is a lie and you can stop calling it that. To claim I "did not leave any comments as to why removed it" is a straight lie, as can seen from the edit summary, when I said "Moved the overly detailed listing of her works onto a new page (Works of Fanny Cradock) to allow for a cleaer and cleaner read for readers", and the fact I opened a talk page thread explaining it. Are there any further untruths you want to use to try and justify a sub-standard approach? If you think the page has any issues (which I doubt), please use the talk page to discuss, rather than mindlessly edit war on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It most definitely is vandalism when you DELETED useful information without first discussing it. You never did so. You were also very rude with your comments which is why I replied as I did. Wiki is not about competition but about information.Tal1962 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, little troll. The information is cited to reliable sources. Things not supported by reliable sources were removed. Regardless of all that, there is no excuse for your edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tal1962 has made no effort to discuss the material in question and seems to be wholly oblivious to standard Wikipedia processes for splitting larger articles into more manageable smaller articles. One has to ask about WP:CLUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Tal1962 appears to have posted a retaliatory AN3 report just a few sections below this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Partial blocked from Fanny Cradock and Works of Fanny Cradock for a week. The multiple reverts are one thing, but the fact they broke the article many times and promised to keep reverting are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Tal1962, please read Wikipedia:Summary style. This will help you understand why the long lists were moved to the appropriate sub-article. It would be better if you worked to improve the sub-article, rather than making disruptive edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:85.211.165.21 reported by User:Romartus Imperator (Result: Partial blocked)

Page

Delhi Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Removed pov and non encyclopedic language"
   2. 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Unrelated contributions removed"
2. 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Unexplained. See talk page"
3. 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Initially vandalism, which wa never removed. See talk page. This is POV"
4. 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "That's not a good explanation. Take it to the talk page"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "There were random ip edits. Those sources mention Bakhtiyar Khalji, not the delhi sultanate."
   2. 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Ghurid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Delhi Sultanate. (TW)"
2. 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Delhi Sultanate. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Buddhism and Bakhtiyar */"

Comments:

IP keeps reverting edits and will not communicate with other editors on talk page. Content dispute. Romartus Imperator (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The reporter is a sock puppet. Will avoid edit warning. The added contents is purely POV and non encyclopedic language was used. As for the sourced content, the references do not mention abour the Delhi Sultanate. Already used the talk page. Thank you 85.211.165.21 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet and I urge you to withdraw that statement. Romartus Imperator (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's opinion IP is clearly not here to contribute but rather to right great wrongs by removing critical but well-sourced material from an article. RandomCanadian (contribs|talk) 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. I have no opinion on the article other than my dislike for removing referenced material without discussion (civil, please) on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked Since the IP is dynamic but has edited on no other page, I have blocked them from editing this article only for 6 months. I will watchlist the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:204:E37F:FFF1:C42C:E57:AFDB:17AC reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Lê dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:204:E37F:FFF1:C42C:E57:AFDB:17AC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:204:E37F:FFF1:948:AB06:BA91:A785 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:204:e37f:fff1:8899:b571:c3f6:df30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "Lol two contracting Dai Viets"
   2. 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "They were alrealdy Le"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) to 07:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Society, culture and science */"
   3. 07:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   4. 07:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
   5. 07:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) to 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   2. 20:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   3. 20:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   5. 20:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
   6. 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Foreign relations */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) to 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Dai Viet is not official name"
   2. 18:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "discuss"
3. 21:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC) "/* May 2020 */ also 3RR notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk:MarkH21#gg: their last response about this article was at 19:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
2. User talk:NhatMinh1701: they were directed to this discussion on their talk page at 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) and in an edit summary at 20:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

Comments:

Continues to edit war against multiple editors after their IP changed. They have done so largely without explanation and while neglecting to continue at the discussions here and here despite repeated requests here and here.

I was at exactly three reverts (not counting the 3RR-exempt vandalism revert and sequence of non-revert additions) and tried to direct them to the existing discussions where they stopped responding. They have only continued to revert another editor at the same article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change IP you noob! The IP automatic changed each I switch/turn off the same computer and I don't know how that stuff doing, so there would no investivata here. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So for my bad english, but when Chinese imperialism emerges Wikipedia is acceptable? You should add Song dynasty as a tributary state to Liao or Jin Empire also.2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor continues to edit war after this report was filed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Two Dai Viets in the same collum is contracty.2601:204:E37F:FFF1:8899:B571:C3F6:DF30 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Special:Contributions/2601:204:E37F:FFF1::/64 blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This /64 range was previously blocked for disruptive editing on 10 April by User:El C. See the log. Also a report at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I didn’t even realize that I had interacted with them before. I thought that a Sacramento-based IP adding unreferenced content to Vietnamese-Mongol history seemed familiar. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Has this user/range provided a single source, in any of their edits, whatsoever? I would be inclined to extend the block to weeks rather than days. What do you think, EdJohnston? El_C 23:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve only seen it once or twice in the last day or two. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with a one-month block. The block might be lifted if the user would agree to regiater an account and wait for consensus. He complains above that his IP changes automatically, but creating an account would solve that problem easily. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've extended the block to 2 weeks. El_C 01:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)