Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Already blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert 17:59 12 nov:[1] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [2] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [3]
Second revert 20:33 12 nov [4] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [5]

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

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.

This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here. Another personal attack on another user here.
This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
Here, which is part of the complaint above
Other pages: Here, here,
Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, this is a very serious accusation and personal attack by user Paradise chronicle. Standing against YPG militias does not mean one is supporting ISIL. It's not black and white. See this Human Rights Watch story about PYD/YPG human rights violations. Your argument just shows that you are here to push a pro-PKK/PYD POV agenda. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Could you please look into the three cases against user Konli17 open here and waiting for admin action for almost two weeks. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THIS GUY IS A VANDAL!!!! Here is the most recent example now of how he snuck in a change in words in an edit:[7]. Notice how the words "Assyrians and Syriacs" are turned into "Kurds". Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism reported on the Qamishli page: [8] [9] Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism: [10] [11]

I have news for you @C.Fred: @EdJohnston: @Liz: @Black Kite:. Konli17 is a sockpuppet.

FYI, ThePharoah17 just had to revert the so called vandalism by Konli17 because it was not Vandalism but a removal of second mention within 4 lines. Other so-called vandalism was similar. Guess who is the vandal now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current issue presented in Syrian Kurdistan is not even a real violation of a 3RR rule, and if so classified SD would have incurred in it as well. The filer of the report Supreme Deliciousness restored a version which was more to their gusto twice on the same day and which edits are clearly focused on an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, which is the subject of the article since weeks.

Here and here the diffs of their "restoration". In between SD had several other edits where SD removed sources and text not to SDs gusto on the 13 November 2020

here here and here they also removed text concerning concerning Kurds in Syria on the 13 November 2020. So all together 5 edits focused on the removal of mentions of Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan within 24 hours by Supreme Deliciousness.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This report doesn't show any violation of the 3RR rule as all the links show different edits and the important one is just on one day. One revert per day is allowed as to my knowledge.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked – Indef by User:Drmies: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia--also duck block, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist". EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Konli17 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Kurds in Turkey:

Iranian Kurdistan:

Turkish Kurdistan:

Western Armenia:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] [13] [14]

Comments:
This user is extremely POV pushing, and doing long lasting edit wars with other users. He is thinking Turkey or Iran is occupying Kurdistan. He got ridiculous edits such as changing short description into "Iranian-controlled part of Kurdistan" or such as "the portion of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of Turkey", as if Iran or Turkey is occupying a foreign country. As for Western Armenia, claiming an Armenian irredentist concept is "Turkish irredentism". This user has clearly no idea about distinguishing an geocultural region or a political region.

Beside that, insisting about a map made by a ~~blocked user~~ turned out to be a sockpuppet, which is clearly controversial.

Also adding in another map, adding wrong reference, you can control yourself.

Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another addition: on Syrian civil war article long lasting edit wars: (WP:GAME)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=989491637&oldid=989473465 Undid revision 989448610 by Thepharoah17 (talk) Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=989675043&oldid=989571718 Undid revision 989492811 by عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) Undo unexplained (see talk)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=990536934&oldid=990378311 Undid revision 989709539 by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) Better English
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=990942689&oldid=990730287 Not vandalism

Beshogur (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

´*Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This report isn't even mentioning a violation of the 3RR rule = 4RR within 24h. Konli17 just disagrees with you, at most has reverted twice in 24h. Beshogur has incurred also in reverts while both of you haven't broken any rule, as far as I have checked. The jurisdiction part was resolved as far as I have been involved in the dispute, and the term under was replaced by within which Turkish Kurdistan really is. I guess this is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked – Per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Konli17 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989382024 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) No, it's not"
17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989378703 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) Erdogan says Kurds and Turks are brothers"
16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989366968 by Beshogur (talk) Undo unexplained blanking, correct"
14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Add Kurdish name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Turkish Kurdistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Konli17 has been consistently reverting almost everyone else's edits in the Syrian Kurdistan page. This is the 4th case against them still open with no Admin action yet! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He dit 4x reverts in 24 hours why admins not take a look?? Shadow4dark (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
maybe because it is an ethnic dispute where Konli was constructive and the others were removing info?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really constructive he keeps reverting, admins should give all users warnings. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked – Indef, per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erevys reported by User:TarkusAB (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Other media */"
Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) to 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"
2. 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Resident Evil."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The issue is not only on that page. They went into my contribution history and mass reverted my edits on random pages just to spite me. Does not comment edits, does not post on talk pages, reverts talk page warning. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User making massive changes on pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erevys (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a separate issue, but while we have the admin's attention this user is also uploading copyrighted material to Commons and claiming it as their own work. See File:Re5-gold-edition.jpg, which I can assure you is not his original work. It's the box art from Resident Evil 5. There's no way that all of these various issues are being made in good faith. Strongly recommend at the very least a temporary block for multiple disruptive behavior. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ughhhhh TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for harassment of User:TarkusAB. The original problem here is that User:Erevys has been reverting Resident Evil once a day for four days, to re-add File:Resident Evil (Movie logo).png. Erevys created their account on 13 November; they have 35 edits. But lately they have been making a point of undoing edits by User:TarkusAB on unrelated articles. They did so six times on 25 November. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KIENGIR reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Nobody broke 3RR, the problem is that the user pushes their idea without explaining their reasons and against the consensus. There were more reverts, I give only the last ones.

[16]
[17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'didn't give a warning, but I cited WP:STONEWALLING where their behaviour is called "disruptive" in my comment here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on project (sic !) talk page: E.g. [18]

Comments:
The discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#"Germans",_"French_people"_etc_-_ethnicity_vs_nationality, so we continued it there. The parts of the discussion related to the edit warring begin after KIENGIR's comment of 02:24, 21 November 2020 [19]. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. I don't think that discussion has reached a consensus in favor of the proposed changes. Per WP:BRD, i believe KIENGIR was thus justified in reverting those changes. Krakkos (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this report is ueseless, better BOOMERANGish, the user fails to understand our basic policies (consensus building, dispute resolution guidelines etc.). The sad thing he reiterates those false accusations that have been already debunked, I participated in the discussion both on the article's talk page, and the wikiproject page, I explained everything, and contrary what the user say (as another user just reinforced, etc.), no consensus has been reached (the user went forward with a bold edit, admittedly ([20]), and contrary what the user says, per defintion (if we are strict) the edit warring started by ([21]) this edit, when the user without any modification pushed his version with no consensus, while I tried to rephrase it more times before telling him if it goes like so on, the the page will have to be restored). I answered to the user's weird accusations (stonewalling, funny, restoring to status quo is the standard process, which is not favoring anyone's version, after more trials), disruptivity is as well not the case, I assume with a good faith the lack of experience in the resolution regarding such issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I still hold that there was consensus, since two users expressed their support (diff), while none expressed disagreement except KIENGIR who refused to give any substantiated reasons. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is the most easy to spot it wasn't, as reinforced by the other editor, just because two agreed, does not mean everybody agreed, you did not even wait for everyone's feedback, you simply don't understand how consensus building works. I warn you to drop such false and misleading allegations like "refused to give any substantiated reasons", I did even more times, they are readable both talk pages (not liking them does not mean they do not exist).(KIENGIR (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Result: Both User:KIENGIR and User:Rsk6400 are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again at Germans without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. The question of what to put in the 'short description' field could easily be handled with an WP:RFC if the two of you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flickotown reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Advice)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) to 09:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "removed. See the consensus on the talk page"
2. 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "/* November 7 */ removed because this is not a protest"
3. 09:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "removed. See accompanying explanation on the talk page"
05:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990530997 by Albertaont (talk) brd, unsupported and undue. That's not in the sources and the material isn't necessary when it can be combined with the second cause. Debate on the talk page first before reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See block log on user, who is not as new as their account age may suggest. The "see consensus on talk page" is utterly nonsensical since they only posted barely 16 minutes before that particular removal. Also see this remark by Liz, which they evidently ignored. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be an easy WP:BOOMERANG and especially so for an editor who has an established block record. The complaint is invalid because the consensus for the removal of the material in question long pre-existed the revert that was the basis for the first difference of the listed revert - that will be evident for anybody who reads the "paragraph removal" section on the associated talk page. As for the complainant himself, administrators should note that he has been WP:FOLLOWING the edits I've made on two separate pages (Air defense identification zone and Taiwan News) and has most likely committed a 3RR violation on one of them (4 reverts on the Taiwan News page within 24 hours - [22], [23] [24], [25]). Administrators should also be aware that this isn't the first time the complainant has engaged in this type of harassment either - he has been doing the same thing to User:Amigao and User:Pasdecomplot (and no doubt many others - these two users are just the most recent ones that I could find who've been subject to this editor's harassment) and apparently that's been going for a few months now even though he was handed a block a few months prior (on 24 June 2020 to be exact) for, again, doing the same thing to a third, uninvolved editor. The best course of action would probably be if the administrators could just drop the hammer and start imposing severe sanctions in response to this complainant's pattern of disruptive editing because this really does look like an obvious case of an editor who just clearly isn't here to build the encyclopedia. Flickotown (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I followed you to 2020_United_States_election_protests is pure fantasy, given my edits at the POTUS and Senate articles dating to 7 Nov when news outlets called Pennsylvania and the election for Biden.

Conveniently omitting that the "Controversy" section you had removed was the result of an AN/I 3rd Opinion discussion, your lecturing of BRD can only ring hollow. As to the spurious counting of 3RR, the 2nd diff clearly is not a revert, as that material had never appeared on the page before, nor any of the revisions dating from before your May edit and the latest "dispute". The 3rd diff is a semi-automated usage of User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill, building on the link added within the 2nd diff.

Your claim of WP:HARASSMENT of Amigao will need far stronger and persistent evidence than your own word.

As to the 24 June block, there is no possibility that you did not notice the phrasing "feuding with [editor name]", which was cited both in the log and the admin's custom message. A feud simply doesn't occur between two uninvolved editors.

I did not even have to search that far back to find an example of a blatant personal attack from Flickotown: "That's coming from a person with a photo of Gramsci, a person whose views was all about the fringe", let alone the May/June attacks at Talk:Rania Khalek (still un-redacted / re-factored despite talk page warning), a commentator on the already editing-contentious Syrian Civil War: "I would explain more particularly when it comes to your ignorance (or seeming ignorance) of your own bias, but for somebody who likes to boast on your own talkpage about the thousands of edits you've made on Wikipedia I probably just shouldn't bother" CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh wow I didn't even realize that our history actually went that far back to the Rania Khalek article. So it seems like an interaction ban probably is in order in addition to the severe sanctions that should be imposed in response to your pattern of disruptive editing.

Stop trying to gaslight everyone and draw this false equivalence between our conduct as if that's supposed to successfully deflect from your not here edits and editing. You can do your hardest to act like an archaeologist and go around and dig up as many isolated incidents of my problematic conduct as possible (and I admit, I should have used better language for the examples you found), but it doesn't compare to your months (perhaps years) of edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles over multiple areas of disagreement. It just doesn't. The facts don't lie: my conduct on the talk apge for the 2020 United States election protests convincingly shows it's very clear I've come a long way from my earlier days while your hounding of my edits shows that you've learned nothing from your earlier blocks.

I didn't say you followed me to the election protests article, I said you followed me to the Air defense identification zone and Taiwan News pages (which is true). I wasn't aware that there was a controversy section on the talk page for the Taiwan News article prior to my revert of your revert, but now that I am, I've taken the discussion to the talk page (even though I am well within my rights to revert your disruptive editing per WP:HOUNDING.) And the actions towards User:Amigao is harassment (funny how you didn't mention your actions towards User:Pasdecomplot), but since we are on a noticeboard involving administrator's it's best to let them educate you and tell you the truth (instead of reducing it to a i-say-you-say pissing match). As I said this complaint should be an easy WP:BOOMERANG because it just doesn't have anything to stand on. Flickotown (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because you have not launched personal attacks (the bare minimum) at Talk:2020 United States election protests does not mean you ignored Liz's advice (on 18 Nov) to seek consensus before further removals, of which there are multiple linked to above.

Pasdecomplot was blocked for their own WP:ASPERSION-casting conduct, if anything the mentioning of them as somehow being subject to unfortunate circumstances (namely, harassment) is gaslighting. Especially as I was not mentioned once (nor did I !vote in favor of the proposed 1-month block or 6-month sanction), I will take no lectures in being told the truth. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that because you don't actually know what's going on: you're just trying hard to give the administrators an impression that you know what's going on. I didn't ignore her advice because my removal was a bold removal, that is a removal that should not have been controversial (I removed material that was duplicated on two other articles.) As soon as another editor took issue with it, I took it to the talk page. Your comments would apply only if I made a contested removal, that is removing material which was previously restored and did not have the corresponding consensus on the talk page to restore - not what happened here. As for your dustup with User:Pasdecomplot, it doesn't matter if he's blocked or not. THe point is your disruptive editing is the common denominator for the issues that at least four other editors have with you - and no I don't mean one-liners on issues that I don't remember to editors that I don't have an interest in remembering, I mean your model style of harassment where you edit war with multiple editors across multiple articles over multiple areas of disagreement over a period of months, if not years. Not that you care as the whataboutery in your comments makes clear - which is precisely why the complaint should be an easy WP:BOOMERANG Flickotown (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean one-liners on issues that I don't remember—Astonishing facetiousness in light of the fact these are not one-liners, and do not date from Dec 2018 / Jan 2019, when your account was opened, but rather, this June. As you did not take the simple step of checking barely 10 edits back to determine the order of the "bold" edit there, you should not be assessing your own edits as bold removal. That is up to non-involved editors such as @Liz: to judge.

The thread was opened regarding your conduct, nevertheless you falsely proceeded to claim I violated 3RR at Taiwan News (when it is obvious that there was only 1 revert each of 2 separate edits), an ironic echo of these vitriolic WP:WIKILAWYERing remarks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is all true, but note the difference in how I've responded and how you've responded. I actually take ownership for those comments I made. I've actually proved that I've learned from my previous mistakes. That is why unlike you I don't need to get all defensive and hysterical in my responses. That is why unlike you I don't need to go through every single comment that you've made for me to prove my point. As I said the facts don't lie: my conduct on the talk page for the 2020 United States election protests shows it's very clear I've come a long way from my earlier days. You on the other hand can't even bring yourself to admit that you've been hounding other editors even though you were blocked for precisely that reason. That's how pathetic this whole "complaint" of yours actually is. For your sake I suggest that you take your own advice and leave the rest of this complaint to non-involved editors. The more you type, the harder the boomerang is going to be. Flickotown (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had best not conflate WP:HOUND (by definition one-way) with a two-way feud. Let there be no pretense of ownership for remarks, given this gem of an uncivil edit summary, which, incidentally was what brought you to my attention again. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 09:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not conflating anything. What you are doing is hounding. You're the one following my edits on the ADIZ and Taiwan News article when I couldn't care less about doing the same to you. Your feud with that editor is just another example of your WP:NOTHERE edits and editing.

Profanity is allowed so i don't see what the problem with this edit summary of mine. I stand by what I said and I would do it again. I'm not swearing at anybody, I don't either know or care who wrote the previous material and I'm not doing it in the course of a conversation either. Obviously it'd be a different story if I did know who the author of the material was but that's not the case here. One more example of how I can prove that I've been learning from the mistakes I've made, especially during my earliest days on this encyclopedia.

"which, incidentally was what brought you to my attention again." Damn. I don't know where this obsession comes from (apparently I've been occupying a place in your attention span all this time) but whatever the cause of it is it must have really got under your skin. I'm that important to you am i? Flickotown (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:HOUNDing here. If two points can solidly illustrate a pattern, statisticians wouldn't need any training!: Anyone can view for themselves that the last time you and I were both at the same venue (May / Jun of this year), I had not interacted with you at all. Indeed, between the last interaction in Feb 2019 and that non-interaction where DeltaSnowQueen, you had made 68 edits. Between that Feb 2019 I mentioned and 24 Nov, that's nearly 200, a majority of your current edit total.

You have not learned much in the way of self-conduct. Even now, your usage of the term hysterical (describing a mental disorder) above parrots your poor conduct (1 2) from the early days of your present account. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after claiming prior personal attacks were meaningless "one-liners", Flickotown proceeds with "your wild imagination running riot" in response to a simple request for third-party sourcing supporting their claim. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 08:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than you threatening me with a block. (I don't see how that's a personal attack, but if it is then I'll strike it out) Flickotown (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of interest to point out that Flickotown has been blocked for this kind of 3RR-behavior before. He may point at CaradhrasAiguo's block list, but:

those are three blocks over a course of almost six years, the first of which occured four-and-a-half years after their registration,
two of those were related to Flickotown's frustrating behavior before,
and one out of those three blocks was lifted by an administrator when it was found to be excessive and was only related to Flickotown.

Meanwhile, Flickotown himself ought to be careful at whose block logs he's pointing. As said, CaradhrasAiguo only received three blocks within six years, the first of which occuring almost five years after their arrival, whereas Flickotown himself has only been here for a little under two years and managed to get blocked within a few weeks of his first arrival, without it being lifted, and his provocative behavior has not only led to a block of himself, but also to one of CaradhrasAiguo's blocks which was found to be excessive.

Furthermore, I'd like to repeat my summary of what Super Goku V has written about Flickotown's behavior that has led us here. Flickotown seems to manufacture "consent" for his edit-warring behavior by means of:

inventing invisible unicorn users to "agree" with him,
deliberately misinterpreting suggestions for alternative phrasings as "consent" for absolute removal without replacement,
and interpreting it as "consent" when people don't respond to him on the talkpage within two minutes.

All in the face of absolute majorities of a number of different people telling him repeatedly he's clearly in the wrong, and yet he keeps offending whenever he thinks nobody's looking.

Honestly, even just having seen his behavior during the past few days over at 2020 United States election protests and its talkpage, and now looking at his past history during the past hour, I seriously doubt he will ever become a useful contributor to Wikipedia. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Flickotown is advised not to personalize disputes. I think that everyone here knows how to hold a talk page discussion. If reverting continues, blocks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't see it at the Noticeboard link, nor on his own talkpage, nor at the talkpage of 2020 United States election protests.

I'm also surprised you're linking us to a totally different issue that seems to be about Taiwan News (a battlefield with his involvement that I didn't even know about until you've just linked us to it), when this report is about User:Flickotown's behavior regarding 2020 United States election protests and its talkpage that we're seeking a decision on. Something like a two-digit amount of people have told him to stop what he's doing on that one article and talkpage alone, and yet he keeps acting against consensus there.

Finally, the issue being reported and at stake here is not personalization, it's constant disruptive edit-warring against consensus, even if he may be trying to personalize the entire issue in his comments here now. It wouldn't be his first block for this kind of behavior, and he's been persisting in this behavior against consensus for weeks even though the mentioned number of people have told him to stop. We didn't come here to ask him to not personalize this, we came here to reach a decision and effective measure against his edit-warring behavior against consensus in which he's persisted for weeks now, no matter how many people are telling him to stop. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Borsoka reported by User:Boyar Bran (Result: Bran blocked 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to: "Basarab's name is of Turkic origin.[7][8] Its first part is the present participle for the verb bas- ("press, rule, govern"); the second part matches the Turkic honorific title aba or oba ("father, elder kinsman"), which can be recognized in Cuman names, such as Terteroba, Arslanapa and Ursoba.[9] Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][10][11] At least four royal charters from the 14th century refer to Basarab as a Vlach.[12] Charles I of Hungary referred to him as "Basarab, our disloyal Vlach" in 1332.[1][11]" [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: "Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler's birth and a language spoken in the region more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)" [27]

Conversation continues here: [28]
Previous conversation with Borsoka (I'm not too proud of how I've behaved here, but I cannot remove it now): [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]; [31] (Same links as above)

Comments:
The entire issue is centered around Basarab's name origin. Basically disputing between either a Cuman origin or an indigenous Romanian origin. User:Borsoka is POV pushing, he's also an example of WP:TENDENTIOUS, he constantly removes my contribution because he's considering it fringe. Truth is there's no official academic consenus on the matter of Basarab's name origin. However Borsoka is dogmatically following his theory alone. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, the theory I'm supporting isn't un-academical nor departs significantly from the mainstream views. If there'd even be a mainstream view in the field of Romanian linguistics, Sorin Paliga's theory (the one that I'm supporting) isn't unorthodox. Neagu Djuvara's theory (the one Borsoka is supporting) also isn't standard by any means, Djuvara has just written a small number of pages regarding a possible origin of Basarab's name, yet Borsoka pushes that theory like an absolute truth.

Note: IP 85.120.207.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is me. This IP is a common IP from a students' dorm. I created an account not because I want to sockpuppet, but becasue I'm new to Wikipedia editing and my account Boyar Bran is the first I've ever done.

I know that my behaviour is also far from ideal, but all I want is to present an academical theory, thanks. Bran (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. (Just for the record: 1. I placed tags in the article requesting sources to verify that the statements do no represent a marginal/fringe theory. No source has so far been added. 2. I approached two wikiprojects asking comments ([32], [33]). Nobody has so far commented the issue. 3. I requested a third opinion ([34]). It remained unanswered. 4. Paliga does not claim that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin. He claims that Basarab's name is possibly of Daco-Thracian origin, comparing the name of a 13th-century ruler with words from a poorly attested language which died out in the early 7th century at the latest.) Borsoka (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this report connected to the three other reports above. I have no knowledge of any connection between the four cases. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report Boyar Bran for edit warring. Can I do it here or should I start a new report? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Borsoka is constantly removing my contribution! He didn't wait for the issue to be resolved here in ANI and that's not conforming to the rules. I did not exceed my three reverts per day so I didn't break any rule. Important note: User:Borsoka may be politically biased. Exempt taken from his talk page: "(...)Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)"[35] Bran (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not remove Boyar Bran's contribution: I transformed them into a footnote and explained my edit in a lengthy edit summary ([36]). (I am still convinced the whole text should be deleted, because it presents a fringe theory, but for the sake of compromise, I placed it in a footnote.) 2. Boyar Bran have not exceeded his three reverts per day, but I would like to report him for edit warring. 3. The above quote could hardly be proof of my bias. If the whole context is taken into account, it is even more clear: an editor was for a time convinced that I was a nationalist (form the Balkans), and appoligized for this assumption on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you denied being a "Balkan" nationalist, but rather a "Central European" nationalist proves perfectly your bias. Although Romania isn't a Balkan country (but a neighbour); Romania still fits inside the category most "Central European nationalists" groups deem unwanted. Bran (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not want to comment on your remarks. In my reality, I cannot and do not want to understand them. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:Boyar Bran for 72 hours: they have been edit warring here for a while, first as an IP, and they're one revert past Borsoka's--but there are two more things that count heavily here: KIENGIR (and earlier Shakshak31) also reverted Bran, meaning Bran is editing against consensus. Moreover, citing a disputed unknown scholar and linking an Amazon entry is not OK; the discussion on the talk page (which should probably involve more editors and maybe be held also at RSN) is not going their way, and Bran is being particularly uncollegial there. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dikaiosyni reported by User:StoyanStoyanov80 (Result: Pages protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990971451 by Jingiby (talk) I added Rossos in support that the Lozari were early adherents of Macedonian nationalism. It is not up to you to determine what is trustworthy, if you don't trust it your opinion. Unless you can provide me with sources as to why Rossos is wrong on this matter, this will stay.)."
15:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990970940 by StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) Can you please stop edit warring and discuss in talk? But no, I never claimed he is Macedonian. He was just considered important for early adherents to Macedonian nationalism, hence why the Macedonian language should stay there. You can add Bulgarian too if it helps you sleep better."
15:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990970213 by Jingiby (talk) The source provided to support this is the preamble of the Loza journal, it literally calls Bellios a Macedonian patriot and you can see they are inspired by him. Your tags are influenced by your pro Bulgarian views on the Macedonian Question."
15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990969179 by Jingiby (talk) Added his name in Macedonian because of the impact he had on the Macedonian National Awakening, he was Vlach correct. But the adherents to Macedonian nationalism such as the Lozari, were impacted by him; he was an important figure for them. As such, that is why I added the Macedonian language, because he is a prominent figure for Macedonians."
15:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990968917 by StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) Please read my statement, to quote: Added his name in Macedonian because of the impact he had on the Macedonian National Awakening."
15:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990966375 by Jingiby (talk) you can't just remove my edits without any legitimate explanations, that is vandalism. Your edits are motivated by your personal beliefs. I made the original statement, you need to discuss it in talk if you have any objections."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As you can see, these two users are coordinating against me in order to get me banned. These users edit according to pro-Bulgarian views and make sure that anyone who challenges their stance gets banned. Their edits on this article (and other articles that they were going after me for) were not constructive and I was trying to avoid yet another heavily pro-Bulgarian biased article. Please note that I am new to this site and I am not as familiar with the rules as they are on Wikipedia. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is very disruptive and difficult to work with, they have done a total of 6 reverts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantinos_Bellios and another 5 reverts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Macedonian_Literary_Association just in the past few hours. I think some kind of temporary ban would be sufficient in order to hopefully curb this user's behavior in the future. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:StoyanStoyanov80 is accusing me of disruptive behaviour yet vandalised my edits and also engaged in disruptive behaviour, going after my edits without any adequate explanation. This user is motivated by a pro-Bulgarian ideology and wants to silence editors that are not pro-Bulgarian aligned using technicalities such as this. Dikaiosyni (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Konstantinos Bellios and Young Macedonian Literary Association protected 5 days each. If warring continues after protection expires, blocks are possible. Both Dikaiosyni and Jingiby are already alerted to the WP:ARBEE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.84.44.172 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[38] (with an accusation of me being a "terrorist apologist")
[39]
[40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction, see Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE_case. Editor has three times restored WP:BLP violating content removed with clear edit summaries, the first removal was here stating WP:BLPCRIME violation, see Talk:Balcombe Street Gang#Significant BLP issues with this article. Although they confessed to Guilford/Woolwich, they weren't convicted of any other bombings prior to December 1974 so including them is right out), and here stating Except of course when it comes to WP:BLP violations which are removed immediately without discussion, in particular WP:BLPCRIME violations since you just accused living people of crimes which they have not been convicted or [sic, I meant "of"]. Reverts of IP editors are exempt from 1RR. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week. This page is covered by the WP:TROUBLES 1RR restriction. And as noted by FDW777 their own reverts of the IP don't count. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.67.91.38 reported by User:Dreamy Jazz (Result: IP blocked for a week)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done on the talk page, but see User talk:75.67.91.38 § Djesse Vol. 3 for an attempt at non-templated discussion. Reporting here as they have broken 3RR.

Comments:

Violation of 3RR to restore a slightly promotional version of the lead, while also removing sourced material which they consider incorrect. I have tried to compromise over the wording, but they just are reverting back to their preferred version. They are using edit summaries to talk instead of discussing on their talk page. I have made three reverts on this article, so I will be disengaging before I break 3RR myself. They have had plenty warnings about removing sourced material and instead just reverted. They have also been removing sourced material at Jacob Collier. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To note they have admitted in their edit summaries that they are part of the management company for Jacob Collier. I don't know if this is true or not, but this might be the case. Also other editors have been reverting this edit too. Although I have been reverting, I have attempted to discuss this with the IP on their talk page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further that I have started a discussion on the talk page about the lead. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week User:Dreamy Jazz, I appreciate the efforts you made in that article and on the IP's talk page. The block log now says "edit warring, promotional editing, undeclared COI, refusal to engage in discussion". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:175.103.25.138 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 175.103.25.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC) "Russia is also considered Asia. It is part of Asia."
11:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC) "What soldiers are you talking about?"
10:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC) "Um no. Some Jews are indigenous, because they are converts. Its not only an ethnic group."
10:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Just because they are white doesnt meant they are non indigenous."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ethnic groups in Asia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring IP POV pushing, doesn't want to talk in as per WP:BRD. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section Non-indigenous minorities was termed keeping parity with Ethnic groups in Europe#Non-indigenous minorities. But the IP keeps on changing it to "Other minorities" despite the fact that most of the "minorites" in the section are citizens from different countries of Europe, Russia, North and South America that migrated recently from these regions to Asia, for work, even troops. See the sources for Pakistan, Israel, Afghanistan (US troops), North Korea, Nepal, Kuwait (troops). Also most sources present do not talk anything about "race" as the IP mentioned in one of their edits. I do not know how they are native minorities as the IP wants instead of being "Non-indigenous minorities". Also there is no mention of race in the sources. The IP is unnecessarily POV pushing especially when Ethnic groups in Europe#Non-indigenous minorities considers Jews and Romas as "Non-indigenous minorities" despite being in Europe for hundreds of years. Possible WP:CIR issue as well, apparent from edit summaries which do not seem to be a reply to my comments, but going to a different direction. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the same at Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Hmm.. Typical edit warrior. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. The same user added defamation to Henderson (surname) on 27 November which had to be revision-deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saflieni reported by User:Buidhe (Result: impasse--no good reason to block one editor but not the other)

Previous version reverted to: [49] (as stated below, this contains BLP violations)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:
The editor presents themself as an expert on the topic. Unfortunately, in this case they appear to be following their own opinion of what is correct instead of the balance of reliable sources that cover the book. They have expressed WP:OWN attitudes towards the article: "I have asked you to discuss further edits on the Talk Page. You didn't."[56] and "Restored previous version. The edits were not agreed upon."[57] as well as unwillingness to engage in building consensus: "I have enough of this. As I have noted before, you have neither the intention nor the ability to cooperate."[58] They make blanket revert to their preferred version, refusing to include any of my changes including those they had earlier agreed to on the talk page,[59] (point #2) and repeatedly restored a BLP violation—claiming that the book, by a living author, states something that even they admit on talk it does not actually say.[60] (point #2) They requested third opinion, and were criticized for making personal attacks.[61][62] (t · c) buidhe 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, how many edit wars are you currently involved in? And keep in mind that just because you don’t explicitly violate 3RR doesn’t mean you’re not edit warring, especially if you’re doing across many articles concurrently. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked. Buidhe, I'm all for blocking edit warriors, but I'm wondering here who is at fault. You are both edit warring, of course, and it seems the talk page is at an impasse (I'm sorry the third opinion didn't prove very helpful). Specifically this, which seems to have started it all, is problematic: you say "the Vidal source does say what is attributed", but it doesn't: the source says "Rever stresses that the reports were sent to her unofficially"--so it's Rever's claim, but your version states it as a fact. You say "the authors are not notable", but that can only refer to the "and two British professors", who are not authors, or Hintjens and Van Oijen, who are authors but whose notability is not a matter of consequence here and you didn't remove their article--which is of course published in a perfectly acceptable peer-reviewed academic journal. You make claims of BLP violations, but as I read over the talk page I fail to see the point. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence that Bachman is not an acceptable source here. But your edit summary in this edit, I can't agree with that.
I have no intention of blocking you both, though it seems clear to me that both of you are edit warring and equally at fault. Especially you have done an admirable job of writing content, but many of Saflieni comments and edits are valuable too. I'm afraid there is no other way out of this except for a. mediation/intervention by someone who knows the subject; b. you two working it out, with the help of other boards and editors to answer individual questions (who is an expert, what's more of a reliable source, etc.); c. a block for both of you--which would help nothing at all. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, How is it not a BLP violation to falsely attribute to the book something it does not actually say?

And as I state above, I just don't see how our conduct is equal, given that I've incorporated many suggestions by them, but they don't seem willing to budge one inch from what they see as "right", as well as the battleground mentality and personal attacks. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP doesn't stretch that far. Yes, I am sure you don't see how your conduct is equal. I'm just hoping that you can see how it is practically impossible for an admin who is not judging content to see much of a difference between the two of you, especially given the complicated edit history. Sorry, but if explaining conduct requires so much of an explication of content, it is going to be hard to separate it from a content dispute. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start by reading the book and the sources and the literature instead of relying on uneducated assumptions, Buidhe? This is exactly why people don't (and shouldn't) trust Wikipedia. Saflieni (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe reported by User:Saflieni (Result: impasse--no good reason to block one editor but not the other)

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

Explanation:

The Wikipedia article is about a controversial book about a delicate subject: the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. However, the creator and editor Buidhe gives undue weight to layman's views about the book and dowplays the information from specialized peer reviewed research. As a result the article contained errors copied from reviews. It turns out that Buidhe has not read the book and several of the sources he cites in the article, and he misunderstood some of the sources he did read. Because I have read the book and the related literature as well as the reviews I was able to help out. I added useful, reliable information and removed mistakes and controversial statements. But Buidhe didn't respond well to my edits and kept reverting them. Multiple attempts to start a dialogue on the Talk page in order to explain the edits and their background failed. I have come to the conclusion that Buidhe has some strong opinions about the book without having read and understood it and he therefore prefers not to cooperate with others.

One of the examples that have remained unresolved because of the reverts is my edit which adds the conclusion by two scholars in a specialized peer reviewed journal. It discusses one of the theories that are central to the book. Buidhe disagrees with those scholars but first it became clear that he had not understood whether my edit referred to the book or to the journal article or to my own opinion. After he learned that my edit was almost literally taken from the journal article he starting debating the peer review process in general and the experts research results in particular but without making sense. Another example is the selection and the number of quotes. Buidhe selects expert quotes that appear to support the thesis of the book while in reality these experts are very critical. In addition, Buidhe wants each and every layman's opinion to be quoted in the article even though they all say more or less the same things. This is because the book is their only reference to the subject and including all of them overly represents an uninformed minority view. Other issues are about understanding the content of the book and the reviews. It would take too long to specify them all here. I'll just refer to the Talk page for explanations about my edits and the unfruitful discussions about the reverts. The Diffs: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68][69] [70] [71] [72] I ended up drawing a line at one point and have suggested to Buidhe not to edit any further without a concensus on the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific text in the article that is a BLP violation is "On Rever's "infiltrations"-theory, that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization". (bold added) This is an extraordinary claim, so I repeatedly asked Saflieni to quote from the book where Rever says it. They refuse to do so, and even admit that Rever never said it in the book. Therefore, it is a BLP violation. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that I reverted all their edits. As I stated on talk, "your additions about Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten, Colette Braeckman, the 2019 letter in Le Soir, etc." were all retained, I never tried to expunge them. (t · c) buidhe 16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some brass neck to make four reverts in 24 hours at 22:00, 27 November 2020, 06:53, 28 November 2020, 07:38, 28 November 2020 and 13:24, 28 November 2020, then come here are file a report about the other person... FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of Buidhe I presume? Read my complaint first and then look at the history of the reverts please before bullying me here. This is not the Talk page of the article, but regarding the first point: I have explained that this is how the two scholars summarize the issue. Since Buidhe hasn't read the book he's not in a position to comment on whether their assessment is correct or not. And please do not confuse matters by referring to a few exceptions. I request Buidhe to stick to his own complaint and stop editing mine. Saflieni (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: I have checked Rever's book again about her infiltrations-theory which is an essential part of her claim that the RPF rather than the Hutu extremists planned, sparked and (partially) executed the genocide against the Tutsi ("The RPF strategy to achieve power in Rwanda had three objectives: to infiltrate, instigate and obfuscate.") Rever suggests a general infiltration of the Rwandan population by its members (a fifth column) and more specifically of the Hutu political parties, all four Hutu militia and the government army, to "stoke extremist sentiment among the Hutu militias and parties they infiltrated." For the post-genocide period Rever claims that the RPF infiltrated the ICTR, the UN and other international insitutions, the Special Investigations Unit, the French judicial inquiry, the UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations, and so on. The summary in the Hintjens & van Oijen article covers this theme accurately. There's no reason to revert and keep reverting my edits on this and other aspects of the book ten times in the space of two weeks. Saflieni (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can back it up with quotes from the book, I don't object to adding a factual list of organizations that Rever claims were "infiltrated", but this is about the content of the book (what it objectively said) rather than the reception. And as you admit, the book did not actually say that "every organization" was "infiltrated". (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is about you reverting my edits ten times in a row based on absurd considerations such as "Does Rever actually state that the RPF control NATO or the Seattle City Council?." You are just being obstructive for the sake of it. Or maybe you don't understand the concept of using examples to present a theory. The journal article I cite comments on that theory. Now stop using this page as if it's the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked. See above: it seems only fair that the other editor would also file a report here. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Drmies. Could you please explain to me something? Each time I edited the article my edits were reverted before discussing it on the Talk page. After this happened a number of times I decided to freeze the article to get a third opinion, which Buidhe rejected and I thought didn't solve the problem. However, the outcome was for both of us to stop editing the article. My attempts to work it out in a dialogue failed because of a lack of cooperation. Buidhe then continued to push his version, reverting my edits again, so I restored the article to the point of the 'third opinion freeze' until an agreement could be reached on the Talk page. How is that edit warring? Now we are here and again there's no solution. I find Buidhe's behavior intimidating and intended to frustrate other editors to the point they give up and disappear. And since you've read the Talk page you must have noticed the other part of the problem: someone working on an article without having read and/or understood the sources who is nevertheless unwilling to cooperate with others who are better informed. Isn't such an attitude a recepy for disaster? Saflieni (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't ask me to explain your opponent's conduct; I can't. If you wish to claim that your opponent is unqualified, you'll have to make that case, succinctly, on ANI--but I don't know how successful that would be. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was not my question, Drmies. My question was twofold. One: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement with Buidhe on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Two: Why is deliberately and repeatedly frustrating other editors acceptable behaviour? Not a question but to address your remark: Buidhe has informed us on the Talk page of the article that he didn't read the book and that he didn't read several of the sources he cites. He is just guessing based on (mainly) layman's reviews that are full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Please note that Buidhe has restarted reverting my edits, now aided by someone else, and me restoring them. Please answer my question which I asked before: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Their method seems to be to wear me down so I give up and they can continue as they see fit. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saucysalsa30 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]; user is obviously aware of the edit warring restrictions because he posted a warning on my talk page to mock me almost immediately after I warned him.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is a ton of discussion on the talk page; I'm sure that any neutral observer will see that Saucysalsa30 is engaged in rather extraordinary WP:BLUDGEON/WP:PA behavior.

Comments:
Four reverts in 36 hours; I really don't think that it's acceptable behavior, especially when it is accompanied by false accusations of canvassing, the gigantic litany of personal attacks on the talk page, and now (as I write this) edit warring (and more PAs) on my own talk page. Saucysalsa30 has been notified.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saucysalsa30 has now filed a duplicative report about this same conduct, baselessly accusing me and another editor of canvassing simply because we disagreed with his edits (even as he has just been caught canvassing for real), which I trust will be closed shortly as WP:TENDENTIOUS and a waste of volunteer time (and which I urge him to withdraw, as the conduct of all editors party to the dispute will be examined here).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the original editor, and you and Qahramani44 started an edit war and are guilty here and is evident in the revision history and , as explained here. Whether you two coordinated your conveniently alternating reverts or if Qahramani44 is your sockpuppet is a possibility though another discussion, but the point is you two started an edit war and made 4 reverts in the same vein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a ton of discussion on the talk page"

Yes, you mean by me. I added substantial explanation of failed verification, bad sourcing (including a blog of all things), original research, and other content violations. Your only comment in response to my Talk sections were 1) personal attacks, 2) a tangent not pertinent to content being edited, 3) a false and refuted claim, and 4) claiming Washington Post is an unreliable source. You actually ignored practically every point I made in the Talk page. The only reason why you are making these incident reports is because you were proven wrong, can't live with it, and instead are attempting to shut-up any opposition. WP:IDONTLIKETHIS applies to you, among other things.

I am the original editor, and then you and Qahramani made 4 reverts and started edit warring. Alternating in your revisions and evident canvassing is not an excuse for your behavior. Furthermore, speaking of false accusations, you are falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user in an incident report, on which you've already been proven wrong. Not a good look.

Also, why did you remove my 3RR warning on your Talk page? Are you trying to cover up your actions? Link to revision with 3RR warning here. Link to diff of TheTimesAreAChanging's removal of 3RR warning here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subject is in an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 01:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Blocked Saucysalsa for 60 hours: they are edit warring against three editors, with unconvincing arguments. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (from below)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 reported by User:Saucysalsa30 (Result: Boomerrang blocked 60 hours)

Page: Iraqi invasion of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Qahramani44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users were alternating reverts of my edit between each other, and made 4 unsubstantiated reverts and edit warring, especially in light of Talk page sections I created. There may be canvassing or sockpuppetry involved by these two users too and may be worth for admins to look into it, especially since TheTimesAreAChanging has already made a disproven sockpuppet report as part of this. See the "Comments" section below for context. TheTimesAreAChanging is making such reports because he was proven wrong on an article which among others he is pushing intense POV and defending bad sourcing, failed verification, original research, and other violations.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] This is the revision before Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging engaged in edit warring, WP:TEAR, potential canvassing, and other disruption. To be very clear and this can be seen in the revision history, I am the original editor, and they started and engaged in edit warring in response and made 4 reverts even after I explained my original edit in the Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&oldid=990921268

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging were taking turns in the reverts, and simply reverted with no further action. Notice that they alternate between each other, too).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheTimesAreAChanging&type=revision&diff=991199458&oldid=990389212

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Yes, I added numerous sections to the Talk page to explain violations of original research, bad sourcing including a blog, POV, failed verification, etc., to which TheTimesAreAChanging responded with a single comment ignoring almost all of the points being made. In this comment, he went on a tangent not pertinent to content being edited, managed to be wrong on his claims and even imply Washington Post is not a reliable source, and mixed in personal attacks against me.

Diffs below: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=990933163&oldid=937090882
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=990935894&oldid=990933253
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991023643&oldid=991019213
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991027589&oldid=991023842
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991044271&oldid=991033847
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991067579&oldid=991044334
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991192560&oldid=991186859
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraqi_invasion_of_Iran&type=revision&diff=991219511&oldid=991214593

Edit: TheTimesAreAChanging added a second comment on the Talk page to reiterate the same refuted point in the first.

Comments:

TheTimesAreAChanging is likely canvassing along with Qahramani44 to share and alternate in their reverts, as evidenced in the revision history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&action=history I defended my original edit in the Talk page, including explanations of original research, bad sourcing including a blog, POV, failed verification, etc. The only response I got on the Talk page was a comment by TheTimesAreAChanging with a tangent, making a refuted claim, and implying WaPo (then backtracking in a follow-up comment) is not reliable, with a mix of personal attacks included. Due to not being able to refute my Talk sections and suggestions for improvement on an article in bad shape, TheTimesAreAChanging is attempting to shut down any resistance to his blatant POV and content violations with false and disproven accusations of sockpuppeting and Incident reporting. It's an obvious case of knowing he is wrong and in response, trying to shut-up the opposition. This is important to keep in mind since the user is making a sockpuppet report (already disproven by the DesertPanther user I'm accused of puppeting, see the sockpuppet report link) and edit warring report (edit warring which TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 started unilaterally) disingenuously in response to having their POV and other content violations refuted. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saucysalsa30, you had report this on the IRC channel and I redirected the conversation here. Do you have any questions? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 00:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HeartGlow30797 Could you please look into Qahramani's and TheTimesAreAChanging's edit warring, the potential for them being sockpuppets (given the alternating tag-teaming nature of their behavior), TheTimesAreAChanging's disproven sockpuppet accusation linked above, and look at the Talk page of the above linked article? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The filer is the one who unilaterally tried to change some long standing content in several articles without attempting to reach a consensus first, even after having been reverted by other editors like at Iran–Iraq War. Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, I have tried to engage the user to instead file a WP:DRN report instead on the IRC. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 00:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, I didn't Wikaviani. I added a single reliable source on that page, not modifying content, which you then removed on no basis. What you're making is a baseless personal attack. This sounds like WP:TEAR. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Thanks for that, my comment intended to underline that the filer of this report sounds like the one who is disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Wikiviani is speaking on a citation I added on an entirely different page (not pertinent to this discussion), not modifying existing content as they falsely claim, which Wikiviani then reverted on no basis. Furthermore, if Wikiaviani took one look at the Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran Talk page, they would see a host of severe content issues as already explained. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, this is not an appropriate place to report such this. I strongly encourage WP:DRN instead of here and will help you there if you choose to do so. Also, having two editors report each other for edit warring is further evidence that this needs to be moved to DRN. Thanks! (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 00:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa30: your above comment alone obviously shows your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Besides, you have been editing here for about 1 year, thus you're all but a newbie, playing the victim card while you are edit warring against several editor will not help.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani:, so you make baseless personal attacks, and claim that thoroughly explained on the Talk page and obvious bad sourcing (such as personal blogs), failed verification, original research is acceptable? The only people showing a WP:BATTLEGROUND and uncivil mentality here are yourself and TheTimesAreAChanging who started edit warring in the first place and is making these reports because he was proven wrong. Your unabashed insults and personal attacks prove you have absolutely no reason being part of this discussion. @HeartGlow30797:, how is this acceptable? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you changed some content in the infobox of the Iran Irak war breaking the long standing consensus about the neutral manner of presenting the outcome of the war, then i reverted you and explained you why i did so, but you tried to reinstate your edit without any attempt to discuss it on the talk, which goes against WP:BRD. By the way, baseless accusations like the one you made just above (where did i insult you ?) qualify as personal attacks, not what i said to you. Since you don't sound like an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, i think we're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you initially said differently, saying previously I was modifying long standing content. All I did in reality and which you admit now, is I added a single point with reliable sourcing not modifying/removing existing content, which added neutrality and had the unintended effect of hurting your personal feelings. Yes, calling people "neebies" and having a bad mentality and making other demeaning comments aren't personal attacks? They absolutely are. The fact you came here to make personal attacks and on a tangential matter at that, and the fact you're angry that reliable sourcing hurts your feelings, is ridiculous. Also, ironically, considering you defend vandalism and terrible content quality on Wikipedia as is the actual matter of discussion here (which clearly you have not looked at), it is evident you should not be editing encyclopedias if you have such a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. And just an FYI Wikiviani, TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 started the edit warring and are defending vandalism, original research, non-RS, and other violations, since you didn't look into the matter at all.

@HeartGlow30797:, frankly, Wikiavani adds no value to this discussion and his ridiculous attacks and hostile behavior are very unbecoming of a user on this site. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saucysalsa30, please stop pinging me multiple times, this will not help your case right now. Ping me when these two cases have been closed and opened on WP:DRN. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 01:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Filer is in an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 01:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're making this note when I already linked and explained to you above, was already disproven and the filer there, TheTimesAreAChanging, even admitted as much as being wrong over there. As I said previously, TheTimesAreAChanging is engaging in all of this nonsensical WP:BATTLEGROUND because he's upset that he was proven wrong. They've only engaged in personal attacks and these ridiculous reports because they got upset that they were proven wrong and couldn't handle it. It's simply immature behavior. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a more relevant note: TheTimesAreAChanging has been proven guilty before for using simultaneous sockpuppets, which it appears is being done again with the Qahramani44 account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheTimesAreAChanging/Archive Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Blocked Saucysalsa for 60 hours: they are edit warring against three editors, with unconvincing arguments. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BenjaminTheTrainGuy reported by User:Rschen7754 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to U.S. Route 199"
06:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "this is necessary info."
06:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "This is a just the state part of the U.S. Route, not the full route, The full route can be seen at the top"
04:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "This is NOT false information, this is just making highways in the only state, not the entire route."
20:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to U.S. Route 199"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

06:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on U.S. Route 199 in California."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "/* U.S. Route 199 in California */ new section"

Comments:

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in California Rs chen 7754 06:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring + failure to communicate with other editors. Not partially blocking here due to the failing to communicate and from their contributions a history of edit warring without discussion (Maya & Miguel). Also thanks to User:Rschen7754 for trying to start a non-templated discussion. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamesbrodi92 reported by User:Dark Clouds of Joy (Result: Already blocked by Scottywong for 72 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

All on 29 November

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

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

Comments:

Already blocked by Scottywong for 72 hours for edit warring. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Already blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert 17:59 12 nov:[90] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [91] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [92]
Second revert 20:33 12 nov [93] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

User:Vallee01 reported by User:BunnyyHop (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Comments:
I firsly removed a section with any citations. After that, user Vallee01 reverted my edit, adding a source (without indicating any pages) and another paragraph. This new paragraph was constituted by two problematic parts - one of them using a blog as a source, and the other claiming that "Due to the failure of Cuban anarchists to organise, Cuban exile developed X theory", when in fact, the Cuban exile is from the 19th-[start of]20th century, while Guevarism is a theory from the 60s together with the Cuban revolution. After that, despite me justifying in the edit summary, the colleague reverted my edit and pinged me in the talk page, where I went further in detail. After replying, I removed a blatantly obvious violation of WP:V. After verifying the other source he inserted, I also removed a sentence where it claimed the author criticised Guevarism for trying to impose a dictatorship, a claim which after using Google Books to search for "dictatorship" returned nothing related, being thus on my second revert. It was once against reverted with the description "the literal book is a reliable source written by the person himself is reliable", not addressing the problem I raised in my revert edit, and the colleague replied in the talk page with "You appear to not be able to properly cite things or hyperlink. You're current statement can be be boiled down into nothing". 2 days later I replied in the talk page, "The book does not mention dictatorship, as it's indicated by the link I sent on the revert. Please, no original research", to which the user did not reply for three days (despite being engaged in other articles such as Marxism-Leninism), wasting thus my third and last revert with an even more elaborate description as to why it's not WP:V (just in case there was any doubts left), and the addition of a page needed template for the part of phrase that did not mention dictatorship, for which another user thanked me for. To no avail, it was reverted for the fourth time with the description "BunnyyHop thats not even how you put a ^{[page needed]}. You never do this^{[page needed]}. The book goes into extreme detail about Che.", with the premisse that my point wasn't valid because I inserted the page needed template before the dot (The editor could have simply moved it to be after the dot), and that the book went into "extreme detail about Che" so it was not necessary to insert a page nor dictatorship to be mentioned, even if that violates WP:NOR. There is no reply on the talk page. This user was more aware of the 3RR than me - I was warned a few days ago for long time revert warring, which I did not know was possible. I'm not very experienced on Wikipedia and this is my first time reporting someone. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop For starters you were the first person to edit the article moreover yourself were the only on being reverted. The entire claim is bogus. For starters I didn't revert my added edits I actually kept them, despite your removal being bogus. You yourself have been the only reverting, not only that while I have added citations. BunnyyHop you clearly are not here to build an encyclopedia, just look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=986756112&oldid=986071469. You already have been banned on Portuguese Wikipedia, for posting biased Marxist-Leninist propaganda https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a)_Discuss%C3%A3o:BunnyyHop#Notifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio. And you keep posting it here. Irregardless of the case that while I added citations you keep reverting to your single page. If there are only two people involved this can't be an edit war resulting in anything. Moreover you have had extremely disruptive edits, your report makes out clearly instead of going to the talk page you reverted the edits. And despite adding a verifiable citation you removed it. Vallee01 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both User:Vallee01 and User:BunnyyHop are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again at Guevarism unless you get a prior consensus on the talk page in favor of your change. If you can't reach agreement, WP:DR gives other options you can try. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GigaBiga reported by User:Александр Мотин (Result: Partial blocked, 31 hours)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
This user keeps adding outdated information about skyscrapers in Europe and keeps deleting my recent improvements of the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Александр Мотин: Was this user ever warned? —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has reverted again.[107] I've invited them to self-revert in lieu of being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Partial block covers the page in question only. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PabloLikesToWrestle reported by User:Andrew nyr (Result: blocked 60 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991442035 by KhanzotChinev (talk) Again, not any reason provided"
00:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991426335 by KhanzotChinev (talk)"
23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "You haven't responded in talk page nor have you backed up anything you have written, on the other hand, you didn't provide any reason to why delete the added info."
16:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Dude, stop being disruptive already. I left you a message on your talk page, if you don't want to solve it, stop vandalizing..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Blocked for 60 hours--for the edit warring, but also for the incredibly disrespectful comments/personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KhanzotChinev reported by User:Andrew nyr (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991429652 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
00:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991418586 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) to 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991405830 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) please see talk page"
2. 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991392052 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991354831 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) as stated previously, please stop vandalizing"
16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991348601 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) You are the one who vandalized first. I have left you many messages asking you to explain your reasoning before wantonly disregarded my contributions. Please have a nice day and stop vandalizing."
16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991347490 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
16:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991345943 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
15:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991339705 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) Please do not delete other people's contributions without first discussing on the talk page. Thank you."
02:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991227638 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk). Do not vandalize without discussing edits on talk page please. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Blocked 48 hours. User:KhanzotChinev, if you are right, it will all come out on the talk page. Reverting will not help your cause. User:Cassiopeia, I'm kind of hoping you'll look at the actual content of the dispute and maybe help figure some things out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, KhanzotChinev, and PabloLikesToWrestle: Good day. I have been asked to mediate the content dispute between user KhanzotChinev and PabloLikesToWrestle on Khamzat Chimaev page by Drmies. As both involved parties has been blocked from editing from Dec 1, 2020 and involved parties can bring the content dispute discussion to the article talk page on 4 December, 2020 when the blocked are lifted. Pls note that admin Drimes has reverted the content - to this version and please do not edit the page content until the discussion has reached an agreement/understanding. When discussion, pls be civil, no personal attack, no trolling, no passive aggressive communication, no provocation, no false accusation without evidence. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eccekevin reported by User:CharlesShirley (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: Current version

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff #1

Diff #2

Diff #3

Diff #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit Warring Template pasted on talk page of Eccekevin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: anon IP editor's first comment on talk page

anon IP editor's second comment on talk page of Michelle Steel article

CharlesShirley editor's first comment on talk page of Michelle Steel article

CharlesShirley editor's edit summary asking for reliable sources (These sources are not reliable sources. They are all activist sources, which take a very limited POV and advocate for a very specific outcome. They are not reliable. I would be happy to include if you provided reliable sources that are not activist, one-sided sources.])]

CharlesShirley editor's edit summary asking for reliable sources again (Pink News is not a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source. Please show that the incident is even worthy of being in the article.)

Comments:
The editor Eccekevin keeps putting questionable content into the article about Michelle Steel. It is an incident that supposedly happened 6 years ago, but it is not supported by reliable sources. Also, User:Eccekevin has been reverting and even called one of the good faith reverts of the questionable material to be "vandalism" even though the edit was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. You can see that good faith violation here: User:Eccekevin's false claim that IP editor's edit was vandalism. At a bare minimum User:Eccekevin needs to stop the edit war and discuss whether there are reliable sources, which so far there has been zero provided by any editor. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. The 3RR brightline was not crossed. Eccekevin directed to discuss matter at talk page before attempting to re-add and reminded that the page is within the topic of US politics. I've also added the page to my watchlist —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:4thfile4thrank reported by User:188.252.196.122 (Result: Nominating IP partially blocked, 31 hours)

User being reported: 4thfile4thrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user simply slided in with reverting my edits in the same second while I was editing the article, leaving the threat on my user page that I will be blocked. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@188.252.196.122: See WP:NPOV. I did not break 3RR, and the words "atrocities" does not fit an encyclopedic tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domenico_Losurdo&diff=prev&oldid=991541025&diffmode=source. Also, the new info is entirely unsourced. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of the history of the article, the reporting user is in jeopardy of violating 3RR. I will give a courtesy reminder. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These immediate edits by User:4thfile4thrank were clearly intended to provoke 3RR by me, so that I would be blocked. Also, I used the description, which used the word "atrocities" from the lede of another Wikipedia article. The last time I checked, "atrocities" was not a vulgar word and in the context of Stalinism could offend only someone who is sympathizing with Stalinism. I would also kindly ask, if it is allowed, for someone to redirect me to appropriate page for this report and for the opinion of another administrator. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the edits was unduly provocative. Please focus on your conduct; don't try to shift the blame to another editor. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you respond to my request to redirect me to appropriate page for reporting this incident if you have reacted so quickly and even proceeded to edit (!!!) the page because of which this incident arose? Now I'm going to report you as well, this time, I hope, on the appropriate page. Are you an administrator here on Wikipedia? (188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The appropriate place to respond to the issue would be at the article's talk page. And yes, I reverted your edits, because I considered the breach of NPOV to be severe enough to warrant a revert. Forgive me for being lenient and not blocking you for the repeat violation of NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you an administrator here on Wikipedia or just an ordinary user without administrative rights? (188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Administrator and acting in administrative capacity on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Block is a partial block in the hopes that the IP will participate in civil, constructive discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:200.6.143.161 reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[109]
[110]
[111]
[112]
And more. Check article history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:
I got involved in this while doing pending changes patrol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I should have submitted this at WP:AIAV. Guess I'll leave it here for now. There is a talk page consensus at that article to not make the edits he was making. The IP edited the inline comment saying not to make the edits, to make the edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sysop banned him. You can close or delete this. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Not my block, but closing the report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BunnyyHop reported by User:Vallee01 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be me Davide King KIENGIR, and Asarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.

BunnyyHop is simply here to push a POV and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He has been banned twice from Portuguese Wikipedia for biased editing on the Portuguese pages Portuguese Communist Party, and Dictatorship of the proletariat. He is a member of the PCP and states it himself on his Portuguese talk page. When called out about being a member of the PCP while editing the article of the PCP on English Wikipedia. He stated he wasn't a member of the PCP, despite stating that he was on his talk page. He only finds interest in one subject that being Marxist-Leninism and all his edits are positive towards Marxist-Leninism as seen by his contributions.

This section of his edits on PCP speaks for itself. Here is a section BunnyyHop added to the PCP, while being a member of the PCP. "(The Portuguese Communist Party exists) To uphold Marxism-Leninism as its theoretical basis,[15] dialectical and historical materialism as an "instrument of analysis and guide for action", the rupture with right-wing policies, the realization of a patriotic and left-wing alternative, and the realization of its party program that is defined as an 'Advanced Democracy with the values of [the] April [revolution]'"

He clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has an extreme interest in editing articles relating to Marxist-Leninism and seen by his contributions, and always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc... He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so.^[1]^[2]

His most recent edit he removed sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities when asked to kindly revert the page he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí. This user is only here to post things relating to Marxist-Leninism, and he is only here to post positive things of Marxist-Leninism.

Oh my god, not this again.

"BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits" This has been contested already and I received an warning. I have not made a "revert". In reality, there should only be one link in this report.

"and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk" Not true, Davide King and I have been the most active editors on the page, telling you about why it's not good to have a forked paragraph of criticism in the lead using weasel words, some of which is constituted of WP:NOR. Other editors such as TFD have also contested this. I might have interpreted him wrong, but I thought we had settled down to remove this from the lead and include an hyperlink to the article that deals with the subject itself. [[115]]. On the article about the communist party, you removed an entire paragraph to include absurdities which can be seen as vandalism (as pointed out by the other editor in the talk page) such as "claiming to be a dictotoral(!!!) vanguard" and "The stated goal of the PCG(!!!) is to uphold Marxism-Leninism, and to be synthesis of nationalism and state communism." [[116]].

The refuse to answer is only when you objection amounts to personal attacks and harrassement through hounding, clearly evidenced by this very own report, where the user goes to my Wiki in other languages in other to disqualify me, accusing me of being a member of a party my wiki simply says I support.

I suppose that "we do not listen" is to the fact that most of your edits are based in your own POV with no WP:V, like for example in the talk page of Marxism-Leninism. Me and Davide King started making changes to the article because we were starting to reach a consensus - by either my checking sources and replying why such phrase might not be verifiable or be original research. The paragraph you insist having was full of it - on the premisse that Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, despite me and the other colleague coming to a conclusion that it's not the case according to academic and a peer-reviewed source.

The two times I have been blocked were for a good reason - one was for my persisntence on an arbitrary use of a word in an article (which the admin and I discussed and have come to good terms), the second a mistake by an admin on the China article for placing the source in the wrong sentence, which is now being contested by me and was contested by another admin. And this was not on this wiki(!!), but the colleague which apparently has been stalking everything I did felt the need to use this as an argument anyways.

"He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so" This is not relevant neither for me nor for you, although you have been blocked for 3 months for edit warring.

"always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc" This is a lie.

"he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí" I did not refuse. I stated I was gonna include it in the Overview as most consent (for which I later edited in the talk page), but Asarlaí reverted it before I could.

If I did violate any rule by replacing it with the a paragraph linking to the article I thought my colleague and I had agreed on, it was not my intention. But there's no denial in saying that this user did not contest the article of the party being absurdities and does not contest anymore on the article of Marxism-Leninism. Anyone who watches that talk page can understand I'm trying to get everything as verified as possible and as neutral as possible. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop You being banned for biased editing on pages relating to Marxist-Leninism doesn't constitute a personal attack. The issue with your edits is you keep not only pushing a world view but you keep trying to get around consensus, not discussing things. I warned you and you refused, you stated clearly on your talk page you can't hide these things. You never reverted your edit because you didn't want to Asarlaí did. BunnyyHop this has been stated to you, not responding to a discussion does not mean support. It's not hard to see your edit history, all of your reverts relate to you reverting the section detailing atrocities You refusing you never did anything wrong, despite you being warned, you were warned because you were edit warring the administrator stated if you began edit warring again you would be blocked. You don't apear to understand that your actions relate to you, if you were blocked by admins twice for biased editing for editing pages relating to Marxist-Leninism. You were warned and told not to edit war, you didn't listen. Vallee01 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin who reads this, I urge you to check the talk page of these articles because my colleague is grossly exagerating. The "edit war" this user is accusing me of - is me editing the page once after extensive discussion on the talk page, where the consensus for some things was achieved. Admin, I urge you to check the talk page. As for what happened in the other wiki - which doesn't have anything to do with this at all but the user uses it to make me appear intransigent - notice how now it changed from "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and "Portuguese Communist Party" (In reality it was on the article about China due to the source not being in the right place - check the talk page and use Google translate if you wish. "Biased editing". The first article ended with the admin explaining to my why using arbitrarily a synonym to refer to a certain word was not neutral - and this led to us editing the page of the article itself to include those terms) to "pages relating to Marxism-Leninism" has if it was some kind of violantion for a user to edit pages where he has knowledge on. This is not the NPOV board, but to give context to the colleague reading this I'll use a comparison - this user wants to mention the worse cases of slavery and genocide on the lead of the liberalism article. On the talk page it was viewed as better to use the already existing criticisms of liberal rule page instead of arbitrarily choosing historical events. The user intransigently refuses to even move this to the overview of the article. [P.S. I did not misunderstand my colleague. There's a new update on the talk page where he affirms to be against this, making it "3-3". There might be a editor I'm missing, because I thought only Vallee01 and KIENGIR (which has not participated in a while) were against - thus making it 3-2] BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop the issue is you keep trying to get around consensus, you are edit warring when discussion isn't over. I asked if you could please you to revert the page. Moreover you tried to rename the page "Dictatorship of the proletariat" with I kid you not "The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat." It screams of POV editing. Here is what an editor told you, "I am replacing the name Dictatorship of the proletariat because this is the name of the existing article but you insist on putting a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, forcing a WP: PV without WP: FF. DARIO SEVERI (discussion) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)." It's not hard to see, we can check pages. Vallee01 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to get around consensus, I was trying to get consensus, which I did (reminder that consensus doesn't mean unanimity), hence why it was edited according to what was discussed in the talk page.

"Moreover you tried to rename the page" - once again, lies and something completely unrelated to this. What I did was insist to use the term in a certain part of a another article, to which some pointed out was a synonym - and was blocked for the first time, 3 days. It's not even possible to rename pages, afaik. After my block the admin gently explained to me why it was not neutral editing, to which I thanked, and changed the article to include all synonyms of the word Dictatorship of the proletariat. It's interesting how you turned this into a discussion about my block in another wiki. For the colleague reviewing this BunnyyHop (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop, only one person supported your proposal, all other editors were against it, and discussion was still ongoing, people called for you to revert but you refused. The issue is that you have persistently edit warred and ignored the talk. You have reverted the page Marxist-Leninism so many times. BunnyyHop this isn't the first time you have been warned, reported, or blocked for editing. You removed sections on the atrocities Marxist-Leninist, genocides, killings etc... You always have posted things in favor Marxist-Leninism, of your entire edit history you have always defended Marxist-Leninist. Also this was your edit extremely clearly you tried renaming it. Everything you do on Wikimedia effects everything else. Posting Marxist-Leninist propaganda on Portuguese Wikipedia makes it clear your here to post propaganda. Vallee01 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Blocked – 1 week. The user was warned for edit warring due to a 25 November report on this noticeboard about the same article. They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus. There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result. Certainly no permission was given there for continued reverting. In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor. Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Wikipedia for as long as a week in a similar topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Lostromantic (Result: no block for the Horse Eye)

Previous version reverted to: [117]; unrelated, interceding edits were made here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[118] (so far unsourced but not unambiguous vandalism; WP:VANDNOT and WP:3RRNO)
[119] (compare to the context wording at the beginning of the paragraph)
[120] (again, not an exception; and yes, the Brereton Report is mentioned in this Diplomat link which I cited)
[121] (not an exception)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Prior account, as admitted on current account's page

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

Comments: I haven't edited Wikipedia very much, but Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back seems to have a history of interacting poorly with numerous other users on this site. I wouldn't mind avoiding interactions with him in the future. How can I ensure that? Lostromantic (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts fall cleanly under our WP:BLP policy (see WP:3RRNO #7). The Diplomat might have mentioned the Brereton Report but they did not support the text as written, we cant have a statement about a living person which isn't completely supported by a WP:RS. I was also never warned by this user, the diff provided is baffling. It is from January and ends with the person who thought I had edit warred realizing that they were mistaken and apologizing. It doesnt make sense on any level, if the point is to show that I have in the past been warned by other users there are actual examples of that which don’t end in an apology to me... TLDR I have no idea what this guy is even trying to argue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to edit warring, clear neutrality violation here by twisting the words of the source making it seem like it wasn't satire, as well as removing all mentions of Afghanistan despite the sources mentioning that topic. MajorShortbread (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your second edit on wikipedia. I hope that your first edit (reverting me and reinserting unsupported text into Zhao Lijian) wasn’t too strenuous. Just a note my dear MajorShortbread, the word “satire” appears in none of our sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to point out here that I've noticed -- Firstly, Lostromantic's assertion that the Sydney Morning Herald is non-neutral and hence cannot be cited in this Wikipedia article is groundless. Yes, it could be described as non-neutral, in a way. But it's still a generally reliable source. -- Secondly, the assertion by both Lostromantic and another user that the image shared by Zhao is "satirical" is absurd. There is nothing humorous about the image. By definition, satire is a form of comedy and it must include a humorous element. Also, none of the sources seem to describe the image as satirical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes, if you don't mind. Lostromantic, if you want to avoid an editor, just don't report them. And if you do report them, do not muddy the waters with specious mentions of a (declared) previous account. MajorShortbread, that is an interesting drive-by account you have, and I am tempted to block you per WP:NOTHERE, but I will settle for a partial block (from that article)--because indeed, the sources do NOT support "satire", and removing half a phrase isn't a blockable offense or a breach of neutrality. Jargo Nautilus, it is possible that others do find something humorous in that image (at least hypothetically possible), but the main point is, as you said, the sources don't bear that out. The real edit warrior here is User:Damian gogo, whom I have blocked temporarily for evading a previous block (based on CU evidence that I cannot disclose here); I am considering blocking them indefinitely for edit warring, manipulating/misquoting sources, and POV editing.

As for Horse Eye's Back, their edits have, as far as I can tell, stuck to Wikipedia guidelines on the use of reliable sources. They have, however, clearly been edit warring, since edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. The question is whether the reverts fall under WP:3RRNO, and there are a few things to consider. First of all, Horse Eye didn't always clearly indicate in edit summaries that, for instance, there were BLP violations, though they did at least once. I think there was one that said "vandalism", though I don't believe the vandalism was that obvious (see WP:3RRNO, item 4). But what redeems the editor is that they said, often enough, that the material was not supported by the sources--[123], [124], [125], [126], and I could probably find more; this meets WP:3RRNO item 7. Moreover, but they didn't know this, WP:3RRNO item 3 applies here as well, as CU established (and I will ping Materialscientist, though I may not tell you why). So, I find that Horse Eye's conduct here, while on the face of it it constitutes edit warring, is not in violation. I'd like to ask EdJohnston, if I may, to have a quick look here to see if they agree. In addition, I am semi-protecting the article since there is too much drive-by editing in addition to the other problems (socking, for instance), that I signaled already. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection of Zhao Lijian early yesterday when there were only a few IPs and drivebys [127] but it wasn’t acted on, fighting to maintain some semblance of respect for BLP is not my idea of a good time and I wish it hadn’t been necessary. MajorShortbread was also found to be likely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting and fits the pattern of Ineedtostopforgetting socks harassing me and driving up the revert count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the actions of User:Drmies but would also suggest three days of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I will leave that to your discretion--thanks for your time. I know there's a lot to look at here. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Zhao Lijian is now fully protected for a week. There is nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991603203 by Bilorv (talk) Political censorship."
22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991600766 by Twassman (talk) Rapidly reverting edits, Twassman censoring negative review of author. Burying it two sentences at the end is inappropriate given the inflammatory nature of the authors work. Mods should lock edits.."
22:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991600040 by Twassman (talk) Rapidly reverting edits, white washing facts about author."
22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991599023 by HaeB (talk) Kindly did read articles, stop blocking all negative review of your favorite author."
22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Previous removal of controversy section edit stated that this section is "simply a collection of every negative thing said about the book" the editor then extremely ironically, proceeded to remove the only mention of a negative backlash to the work from, what should be the historical record. Unacademic!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Four warnings, which IP blanked (so has clearly read).

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion initiated at Talk:Robin_DiAngelo#Edit_warring_over_"Controversy"_section_&_book_mention_in_lede, IP chooses not to participate.

Comments: I reported this user right after you did — my mistake! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm the one being complained about! White Fragility and Robin Deangelo have received widespread negative review in conservative media, and widespread positive review in liberal media. Conservatives view this author as a KKK like figure spreading racially inflammtory and bigoted ideas. Hiding all negative review of author to two sentences is unacceptable and hides reality. Twassman and the other seem unable to put their personal views aside here. Will Wikipedia endorse a holistic view of the author? or is criticism of wikipedia bias on point? The discussion has not been how best to capture the reaction to the author, its just been a editting war with my censorious peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk • contribs) .

Blocked – 72 hours. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Note the user removing references with a deceptive edit summary, 'Corrected punctuation'.EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the censorship is condoned from the top! Good to know.... Wikipedia is dying of cancer.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk • contribs)

@EdJohnston:, you noted the block but didn't actually block. I've now blocked for 72 hours, which is what I believe you meant to implement. Please ammend as you see fit if I got it wrong.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton reported by User:2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (Result: IP blocked for disruption)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=991670112&oldid=991606496 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 [128] 1 Dec 2020, 4:09am UTC
2 [129] 1 Dec 2020, 6:32am UTC

(page is 1RR)

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

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

Comments:
If Calton is one of the top 1000 WP contributors of all time, doesn't it follow that they should know -- and abide by -- the rules? Their talk page is a litany of reprimands for edit warring, and yet they're allowed to go on unabated. I mean, this person just tried to add Donald Freakin' Trump to a list of "Notable Russophiles"...really??? Stop the POV-pushing...stop the madness! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not a 1RR violation. If you take a look at the restriction on the page, specifically Template:American politics AE, under "Remedy instructions and exemptions". It states Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Which in my personal opinion is not great but is what it is. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still edit warring. Nice Wikilawyering for the bad guy, tho. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one here is the bad guy and honestly I do not like that exemption personally or how they are not listed at WP:1RR as exemptions. Just is what it is. PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is so murky. I agree that the IP exemption, if we can call it that, is not great. I also think, Calton, that you should know you have a tendency to skate on thin ice. I think that the IP's edit was not productive and that Calton was right in saying that context matters. On top of that one could argue that BRD should have prevented the IP from reinstating the edit (yeah I know, just an essay). Ha, and while I'm thinking things, I'm thinking that that entire list in Russophilia should be scrapped. It's like a hybrid of a list of beer drinkers--who cares?--and a list of people who like BBQ chips--like? love? can't live without? whose assessment? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly DGAF what your opinion of my edit was. We're here to solve the problem of the edit warring engaged in by Calton. That said, I would love to see how you justify the UK Government -- or, y'know, completely unrelated editors pushing a POV that's in lock step with same -- softening their rejection of the rapporteur's findings with an irrelevant, meaningless statement of "support". Go. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" made no case and was a complaint about user conduct (that was wp:soapboxing). I also note their warning breached wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even what WP:SOAP means, kid. Are you sure you're the person to litter my talk page with warnings, when you don't even know basic WP tenets? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a really attitude issue here, but this is not there right noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use a colon to nest your reply, kid. Like I said, you're really not the right person to interject here. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a boomerang block is in order, even though this is not ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop making irrelevant comments on this matter. You haven't made a single one yet that was on point. Another experienced "Wikipedian" who doesn't know the rules. Pity. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor now blocked for obvious asshattery on this page and others. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:StoyanStoyanov80 reported by User:Forbidden History (Result: No violation)

(Original title was: StoyanStoyanov80 for Canvassing and Vandalism )

This user acussed me and with that, insulted me, here, I put a notification on his Talk page here and the user, delete it. Therefore I report him now to you, both for Canvassing and Vandalism. You might also want to check if TeamTagging is present. Cause out of nowhere on this talk page between me and Jingiby, the user PowerBUL and StoyanStoyanov80 appeared out of nowhere to bully me (both in same day in matter of hours). And yesterday on that same article, another editor Apcbg, deleted my edits, claiming that the part was to long (eventhough days before that i hade also other edits, that were not deleted because of the paragraph being "too long"-obviously they found a way to prevent me presenting the other findings about the stone. The whole article is not NPOV, and obviously is protected by several accounts that are not allowing to change and make edits or to write about scientific researches about the Bitola Inscription itself. They've turned the "Bitola Inscription article" into "Zaimov Inscription article" and are favoring their (Zaimov) theory and made up text of the stone inscription itself. --Forbidden History (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add, as you can see these claims are absurd.--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – StoyanStoyanov80 has not edited the article Bitola inscription so they're not edit warring there. Nothing much happening on the talk page. I am starting to wonder about the good faith of the filer, User:Forbidden History. Their user name hints that they might be here to WP:Right great wrongs. User:Jingiby sent me some email pointing to a real-world dispute between Bulgarians and North Macedonians, of which this report could be an offshoot. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Bitola Inscription, is totally POV and 90 % presenting the side of the Zaimovs claims about the plate. Whenever I try to edit the article, I got warnings and 4 different account activated to stop me for making it neutral and presenting the other scientist views (Horace Lunt, Valanis, Kostikj, R.Mattisen - as I said the article name should be changed to Zaimovs Inscription as It has nothing to do with the plate itself, but with their made up copy of the plate. The persons reported above, reacted to support jingiby and accused me of being "some radicalized youths from Mario's History Talks". I wanred him of canvassing on his talk page. He deleted the warning and called me a "clown" (that is vandalism and insult). Therefore I reported him here. So, EdJohnston, before making your final decision check all the facts first please. Should I call clowns and radicalized youths anybody here and I should delete all the messages on my talk page-are you saying I'm allowed to do that? Thank you.--Forbidden History (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston did you saw the history of his talk page? Stoyanov calling me clown or not? Is deleting a warning a vandalism or not? --Forbidden History (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully disagree with the claims by Forbidden History. I think he is an editor with biased agenda, supporting fringe views and his name is clear sign about it. Jingiby (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is your right to disagree, as It is my right to edit wikipedia in NPOV. Admins will see the facts. Don't you worry. Tell me Jingiby, should I call you clown and radical youth of Karakachanov? Is that not an insult to you? If not let me know and I will use it as much as possible? I feel offended and insulted (or I need approval for my feelings from the above mentioned editors as well, in order to be free to speak about my feeling).--Forbidden History (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History, it is your right to edit Wikipedia to NPOV, but I see your strange edits misinterpreting the sources as: It seems that modern approach of this problem, more openly speaks of possible forgery, or emphasis and manipulation as: two archeologists brought up totally new light on this plate and it's manipulative treatment from the past., or groundless accusations as: HUGE LIE; MISINTERPRETATION of the FACTS, etc. That is not the way leading to WP:NPOV, but to WP:BIAS. Jingiby (talk)

Jingiby those words are of those professors (one from Serbia other from Greece which is highly respected person). Didn't you say the newest works are the most relevant one? Those are the two latest writings about the plate. And you deleted them. I put the work of Horace Lunt - you delete it. How can this article become NPOV, if I'm under attack of 4 different users? Don't twist my words about the LIE. Whole article is based on supposed text made up by Zaimov couple and that is what dominates in the article-and that's far from NPOV. Zaimov made a fictional copy of the plate and this article represents their made up copy not the real artefact, that doesen't have the year written on it. So, don't manipulate the people reading the article. --Forbidden History (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurel Lodged reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990173346 by Solavirum (talk) insert "unrecognised""
16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 by CuriousGolden (talk) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Eliminate N-K altogether which is ambiguous."
12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 by CuriousGolden (talk) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "it is too early to say that N-K is an enclave. It's status has yet to be clarified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lachin corridor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

De-archived: still looking for help. Last report copy-pasted below. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan are quite disruptive (e.g. 1. here and here (note that they did the same revert again on this page after being explained by me in an edit how what they added was wrong) where they revert my edit to put a "de facto" control tag on a village that was confirmed to not be under the "de facto" control of the belligerent they were referring to. They failed to provide an argument for these reverts when confronted; 2. Reverting a removal of a primary source here because "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?". From my understanding of this edit summary, the user clearly understands that primary sources are not allowed, yet they still revert an edit to add it back as it supports a POV that they follow). The user has also broken several Wikipedia policies (WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:GOODFAITH) in most of our discussions and has accused me of random things (Like here: accusing me and a random page mover of being a tag team and here randomly accusing me of reverting edits in an article I had never done a revert on). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the archived report, the user has continued their WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and have started trolling when not able to provide good argument for the addition/removal that fits their POV (Like here and here, where they're trolling a random user). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, this is not only editwarring but also POV-pushing, based on the given links. The Banner talk 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing lots of POV-pushing, and in general, unconstructive edits. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metaveroo reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Several editors left warnings at the talk page of Metaveroo and this was the reaction[144]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSK92, noting that the user in question was indeffed right when you filed this report. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

messed up the name, pinging again: Nsk92. Blablubbs|talk 15:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:95.29.45.86 reported by User:Carbrera (Result: Blocked 1 week)

User being reported: 95.29.45.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Extremely disruptive IP address has been adding fictitious information about newly recorded songs by Gwen Stefani, Dua Lipa, and Madonna for weeks, if not months now. User writes about events that take place in the future and pass it off without adequate sourcing. User has been heavily encouraged to discuss the matter on several talk pages, including Talk:Physical (Dua Lipa song) and on several user talk pages, in addition to being warned dozens of times. User:LOVI33 has attempted to begin talk page discussion on User talk:95.29.45.86 (see [151]), but without success. I irresponsibly reverted their edits on Template:Gwen Stefani too many times without realizing it and I now want no part in undoing this user's edits anymore. Carbrera (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This IP is a sock puppet of User:Zhmailik (it’s really obvious), and has been blocked before for doing the same actions. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been performing extremely disruptive edits. They have broken the three revert rule numerous times and refuse to engage is WP:BRD, which I have attempted to start with them on their talk page. They also have deleted warnings and my comments on their talk page, just further proving that they refuse to engage in BRD. I wouldn't necessarily say they are a sock puppet of Zhmailik due to their edits being different, but I would say it is definitely a possibility as they behave the same way. The numerous suck puppets of Zhmailik have performed that exact same way so that is why I am questioning it. Nevertheless, they must be stopped. LOVI 33 20:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Mz7 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tariq afflaq reported by User:Teishin (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Tariq afflaq is reverting both PopulationGeneticsLevant and me.

Those are all from 1 December. There's also this from 26 November, very probably one while not logged in, which PopulationGeneticsLevant reverted, asking that the issue be taken to the Talk page.

[158]

Tariq afflaq is currently engaged in similar edit wars on several other pages, all regarding the same ethnicity claims.

On Porphyry_(philosopher)

Tariq afflaq is reverting just me here.

On Mavia (queen)

[162]

Tariq afflaq is reverting Julia Domna Ba'al here.

On Joseph Safra

[163]
[164]

Tariq afflaq is reverting Warshy here.

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

PopulationGeneticsLevant warned at [165] "This is becoming vandalism. Next we go to administration board."
I warned them on the Talk page that administrative action would be resorted to at [166].

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

Efforts to reason with Tariq afflaq have been made at:

Comments:

Teishin (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anony20 reported by User:SWinxy (Result: )

User being reported: Anony20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
08:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted image removal by HA; Reason quoted by them for removal was already discussed. Request to let admin decide it and till then no further vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[167] on 17 october 2020, this was stable version.
[168] from 26 November 2020, there has been continuous attempt to add this image by Anony20, which was reverted by me and LukeEmily, reason explaned in edit summary. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[169], he has been warned by admin post closure of WP:AE, to listen to other editors specially LukeEmily. But, continuously putting image of feudal lord on caste article.(glorification) Heba Aisha (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[170] this comment represents that he has WP:COI with that caste group.(HA is showing her biased nature towards the community by using terms like "Illiterate", "Poor", to somehow revert my edit) check this part. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I honestly have no idea what is going on. The article's talk page is a mess of unformatted bickering, Anony20 has been putting up warnings on Heba Aisha's talk page, and there's probably way more to this. They've been warring for the past few days, and Anony20 has received an arbitration warning from a request that closed just this morning, which was since violated. SWinxy (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were repeated image vandalism on the page by user Heba Aisha. Request you to respect the consensus on Bihari Rajput as it's in WP:RFC Anony20 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SWinxy..there is a dispute which is evoked from a consensus that was built in past among caste editors...that image of notable person shouldn't be placed on top of caste articles.Anony20 is consistently doing so.Even he is not cooperating with other editors in RFC and edited the disputed part which was under Rfc(I.e image)Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anony20

Have a look at the RFC[171], and don't mislead pls.Anony20 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve this with discussion[172] but the vandalism didn't stopped there. Discussed it on a new thread by HA[173] and on page protection page(see Bihari Rajput)[174]. Even after the RFC request, other editors don't have a problem with the updated image[175], then HA is showing her biased nature towards the community by using terms like "Illiterate", "Poor", to somehow revert my edit. HA even mislead the admins of wikicommons that my image is a duplicate and nominated it for speedy-deletion which was rejected there. This kind of selectively targeting and showing ownership to a page is not acceptable.Anony20 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Heba Aisha I m not making comments as he is not aware of policies and donot want to read it .WP:CIR issue.Before I started Rfc I reverted the page to the non contested version.And as per rules before we arrive at consensus no edits shud be made to disputed part, but he edited it.Also flooding many platform including my talk page with numerous comment and despite of one active Afc opened yet another on article's talk page.Seems he donot know meaning of consensus and timing of Rfc.Also quoting different policy for different circumstances. (which usually donot applies there)Heba Aisha (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BunnyyHop&diff=983488223&oldid=975636383

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BunnyyHop

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards