Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Dwilliamphilip83 reported by User:Locke Cole (Result:P-blocked for 24 hrs )

Page: Wonder Woman 1984 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dwilliamphilip83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2021-03-15T18:40:01
2. 2021-03-15T20:07:27
3. 2021-03-15T20:33:44
4. 2021-03-15T20:45:19
5. 2021-03-15T20:55:17‎
6. 2021-03-15T21:04:56
7. 2021-03-15T21:10:19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2021-03-15T20:52:58

Comments:

Reporting. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend a short block to get their attention as the editor does not appear to be seeing their talk page or the edit summaries from the repeated removals by four editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Editor finally engaged on their talk page, though they appear to be trying to report me (see below). :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Partially Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing Wonder Woman 1984. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note that I'm a bit concerned that the bulk of editing is focusing on tweets made by a "Dustin Philipson", which is a bit too to the username here "Dwilliamphilip83" that I can't help to think DUCK may apply and we're see major COI issues here (which I have cautioned in the WW84 talk page). --Masem (t) 22:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Rosguill: It appears that the editor has returned to resume his edit war.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)

Page: Whip It (Devo song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] 22:28, March 15, 2021
2. [4] 07:49, March 13, 2021
3. [5] 10:01, March 12, 2021
4. [6] 23:17, February 13, 2021

• This has been going on since June of last year.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [8] - KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns
2. [9] - Citations
3. [10] - RfC about on specific fact on this song

Comments:

• For full disclosure, @Binksternet: just issued me a warning about edit warring.
• This is not the first time this issue has been brought up, I refer you to this, User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik (Result: )

• The last time we went through this, Synthwave.94 modified the archives to remove the last discussion.

What is the disagreement about?

Devo performing in 1978

• On 20 June, 2020, this article was featured on DYK along with KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns.

The hook, "... that the inaugural Top 106.7 Countdown in 1980 was topped by the song "Whip It" by Devo (pictured)?"

There has been a low grade edit war about this line of text (look here), "The song topped the influential KROQ Top 106.7."

References

• (See talk page, as well as WP:CITEVAR.)

At this point, actually at any point, I would have let go the discussion about the citations, but I would like to have kept the tidbit on KROQ. However, Synthwave.94 hasn't really engaged in a full dialog, and even when I split the edits, like this and this subsequent edit, both are reverted. This feels like being trolled - reverts everything, cites policy that doesn't really apply, won't enegage in discussion, and demands consensus over relatively minor point. Oh, and the editing of the archives to remove the previous discussion should get another mention.

--evrik ^(talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

At least one of Synthwave.94's reversions should have been mine, but I hit the button slightly later than Synthwave.94. So Synthwave.94's three reverts in four days should really be two, plus one of mine. Even so, there's no hard rule against three reverts in four days, so you would need to prove long-term disruption.

I don't see why you need to have the word "influential". Everything that has an article on Wikipedia is influential, which makes the word WP:PEACOCK-ey. The fact that the word was approved in the DYK hook makes no difference in whether it should be in the larger article. DYK hooks are required to draw in viewers, to be "hooky". Your cited source for "influential" is Los Angeles magazine talking about KROQ, a Los Angeles radio station, which reduces the impact compared to a more distant magazine saying KROQ's list was influential, showing a wider impact. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

At Talk:Whip It (Devo song) I posted a new observation, that evrik has been violating WP:SYNTH with the word "influential", demonstrated by the complete absence of "Whip It" in the magazine source, and the absence of Devo topping KROQ's Countdown list. The source describes KROQ as an important L.A. radio station, but it doesn't tie that in with the "Whip It" song or Devo topping the list. My observation should settle the dispute about the word. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not Synthwave.94 had two or four is immaterial. This has been going on for months. I would have gladly debated the inclusion of the word "influential" (used on page 8 of the Los Angeles magazine source), or perhaps "world's greatest radio station," which is also used in the source. I probably would have agreed to drop the word "influential" altogether - but I digress. This isn't about the word influential, which was specifically cited, or about peacocky. This is about Synthwave.94's pattern of behavior. If you look at their edit history, they edit on scores of on articles each hour and have complaint on this type of behavior from other users. Going back to what I wrote above, this isn't even about the edits on the formatting of the citations. This is about how Synthwave.94 "reverts everything, cites policy that doesn't really apply, won't engage in discussion, ... demands consensus over relatively minor point," and tried to erase the previous 3RR post. --evrik ^(talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Evrik: Let's remind you that you started using ProveIt to change the established citation style on "Whip It". Once for good, WP:CITEVAR explicitly says that "editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." You therefore needs an explicit consensus to change the citation of an article, no matter if you're using a Wikipedia tool or not. Even if you did start an RfC regarding your changes, you didn't reach a consensus so far. Also, the fact that several IP adresses performed the same kind of edits (see 1 and 2) leads me to think of a meatpuppet behaviour, but I'm probably wrong about it.

Regarding KROQ Top 106.7, I already warned you back in May 2020 about your badly sourced additions. The fact that the info was featured on DYK is not enough to include it in a good article, and it really doesn't matter if it's an "influential" chart or not.

Anyway I already answered you several times through the article talk page about all of this. I think it's time for you to stop adding badly sourced content and to finally close the RfC you started back in October 2020, as I highly doubt you will achieve a consensus regarding your changes to the citation style of the article. It's also time to move on and to stop reporting me each time I revert your non-consensual changes. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comments here are a distraction to the issue which is your aggressiveness, unwillingness to compromise, and “making stuff up.” Regarding the content, each time you objected, I went back and improved the language or the citation until it could be improved no more. When you insisted that I needed consensus to add the text, I went and started an RFC. What was written was factual, cited and linked to another page. As for the discussion on the citations, that is a nothing sandwich. None of the content, or perhaps little content, was changed. Even when I tried splitting the changes (like in October) you still reverted everything. As for the accusations of meat puppetry, what can I say? You make friends wherever you go. --evrik ^(talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Compromise: @Synthwave.94: if you agree to leave the KROQ language, I will agree to leave the formatting as it is. We can move forward and I will withdraw this complaint. --evrik ^(talk) 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Evrik: There's no "compromise" here: if you can find a better source for KROQ Top 106.7, without using irrelevant words such as "influential", then yes, I'm fine to see the info getting back to the article. Otherwise, it shouldn't appear in a good article, as per WP:MISC and WP:IPC. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have already said that the word "influential" is not important to me. I have made multiple efforts to come to an agreement. I think your statement is evidence of why there has been a months long edit war. --evrik ^(talk) 05:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94, can you explain why you removed a previous report from the AN3 archive back in September 2020, also filed by User:Evrik, and also about warring at Whip It (Devo song)? Your edit summary was 'clean up'. In what sense was that a cleanup? I notice you've been blocked many times in the past, sometimes indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply badly reacted to Evrik's behaviour. I was fed up to see him restoring his "preferred version" and to see him reporting me, despite my attempts to make him understand why he shouldn't change the citation style of the article and why his other additions were badly sourced and non-neutral. However, my past has nothing to do with all of this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Synthwave.94 and User:Evrik are warned for long term edit warring on Whip It (Devo song). Either one may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Xose.vazquez reported by User:Carlwgeorge (Result: Stale)

Page: CentOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xose.vazquez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]
7. [18]
8. [19]
9. [20]
10. [21]
11. [22]
12. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

When I went to Talk:CentOS to discuss the reverts, I found that User:Xose.vazquez stated they intend to revert any edit I make to this article. My edits were factual corrections written from a neutral point of view. User:Xose.vazquez suggested that these edits were "commercial advertisements", which is false. I'm open to feedback on how to reword any of my edits to be even more neutral, but outright reverting them isn't the answer. Carlwgeorge (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. All the edits by Xose.vazquez (talk · contribs) that you list are from March 5 or earlier. They made a couple of unusual edits on Talk. I'll leave a note for Xose.vasquez that talk pages are supposed to have the newest posts at the bottom, and remind them that they should sign their talk posts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally reported the user on March 6.[26] The report was archived by a bot before anyone replied to it.[27] When I realized it I re-reported on March 12.[28]. The user violated the 3RR rule, and I would like this acknowledged in some way so I can refer to it in the future when/if the user continues their hostile reverting behavior. Carlwgeorge (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It is way too late to take official action now. Unless you can document a long term problem, it is best to let this go. The 'hostile reverting behavior' seemed to be due to inexperience with Wikipedia: he didn't even know that new Talk posts go at the bottom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood, I'll keep references of this just in case it happens again to establish it as a long term problem (if it comes to that). I've started further dialog with the user on the talk page[29] in hopes that we can peacefully collaborate on the article in the future. Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:A Simple Human reported by User:162.208.168.92 (Result: Page protected)

Page: T10 League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A Simple Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

• Note User was not warned prior to filing of this report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. Actually User:A Simple Human removed the 3RR notice from his talk page. The two editors are constantly reverting each other about the name of a team captain, a name which is unfortunately hard to determine from the references. Use this time to try to settle the factual question. Questioning the legitimacy of someone editing as an IP, as A Simple Human did at Talk:T10 League#Abu Dhabi T10, is not kosher. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Coosbay541 reported by User:Paisarepa (Result: Warned)

Page: Coos Bay, Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Coosbay541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Did some suggested changes and updated citation on my additions earlier, hoping this will be more accepted. Also helped fix the subheadings on 20th and 21st century, so please don't just "undo"."
2. 00:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012555337 by KidAd (talk) if disruptiveness gets real history out there, than so be it. Everything is cited correctly and a conversation could be opened up about the topic, but this is pure erasure"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC) to 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012554862 by Paisarepa (talk) quit erasing this history"
   2. 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012554241 by Paisarepa (talk)"
4. 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012554343 by KidAd (talk) if it's poorly written, then revise it, but it certainly does belong here as it is Coos Bay history."
5. 00:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012539275 by KidAd (talk), added portions I was unabe to when the user changed my revision earlier. I have cited everything I have added, the previous user simply took offense with the section "Other Racist History". This section was added because Alonzo's lynching was undoubtedly a racist historical event in Coos Bay's history, as was Timothy's murder and the resistance of integration by CB Public Schools. Let it stay up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Coos Bay, Oregon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer and I saw the request for Dispute resolution the subject of this report filed there, and honestly- I think they are a well intentioned user trying to improve the article, and they just need some help/coaching to show them how to write in NPOV wikivoice. I am offering to mentor them for the improvement they want to make to this article. I think their frustration is lack of response on the talk page- and they aren't aware that discussions on WP can take weeks, if not months for contentious additions. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that at the time that I gave them the 3RR warning, their only use of the talk page was to inform other editors that they had the content saved and would continue to revert the page if the content was removed. Their sixth reversion, which resulted in this report, made no substantive changes to the content they were adding (though they did improve a source). They continued to revert after being warned on their talk page, and continued to revert after being notified of this report. It appears to me that the only reason the user ultimately stopped reverting is because other users quit removing their content for several hours. Paisarepa 23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Coosbay541 is warned they will be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The real-world behavior described in this article was awful but it is not Wikipedia's job to write its own editorials about historical events. We need to carefully follow what has been written in WP:Reliable sources EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B02B:5DB5:E0A7:7A01:3A61:8F7B reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Semiprotection)

Page: Whiteness studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:100F:B02B:5DB5:E0A7:7A01:3A61:8F7B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC) to 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Whiteness studies

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Alessandraronaldo reported by User:Hurrygane (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alessandraronaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo#Ronaldo assists and polls

Comments: We've not tried to resolve this particular edit war on the article talk page. I'm sure Alessandraronaldo edits in good faith, but they have edit warred many times before. This is just one time too many. They have also received several warnings for edit warring, vandalism, disruptive editing, and for adding unsourced material. I don't want to report them but I have no other choice but to do so.
Hurrygane (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Constant reverting and addition of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ParaguaneroSwag reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Partially blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Marriott Marquis Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ParaguaneroSwag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:24, 18 March 2021‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 1012767042 by Kinu (talk) Discussion is already made and agreed on restoration."
2. 04:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012750407 by Onel5969 (talk) Yes there was."
3. 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012721483 by John B123 (talk) As Per WP:DRV Restoration Vote"
4. 23:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012716114 by John B123 (talk) as per [[WP:."
5. 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "After anonymous consensus in WP:DRV, redirection was determined as baseless and restored and Undid revision 1012544968 by Onel5969 (talk); added sources explaining it's noteworthy points (i.e. height, economic impact); also updated to true height)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:17, 17 March 2021‎ (UTC) by John B123

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:46, 17 March 2021‎ (UTC) by John B123

Comments: Despite having been told otherwise, they are insisting that this unclosed DRV resulted in "anonymous consensus" (?) to undo the redirect, which was the result of the AfD. DanCherek (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. ParaguaneroSwag is partially blocked from editing the Marriott Marquis Houston article. ​— Newslinger talk 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:90.68.50.5 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Semi)

Page: Macrobiotic diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 90.68.50.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Conceptual basis */Removed bias info from a person's who is quoting not even a doctor with intent to put people off of the diet"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) to 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary bias content that is covered further on in the article."
   2. 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "Removed random text"
3. 18:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
5. 18:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "I took out the condemning content added by an obviously disgruntled grumpy old man who was trying to imply that the otherwise healthy diet is dangerous. I have removed the part about cancer as it is repeated at the bottom and does not need to be in the initial text. A Macrobiotic diet will not cure cancer but it is a healthy and well balanced diet that is also more sustainable than a modern western diet"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see IP user's talk page; also violates WP:DE after level 4 warning. Zefr (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. A second IP has arrived to take up the same cause. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sorabino reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Both warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 17 March 2021

1. 17 March 2021 -
2. 17 March 2021

18 March 2021

1. 18 March 2021
2. 18 March 2021
3. 18 March 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18 March 2021
2. 18 March 2021
3. 18 March 2021
4. 18 March 2021
5. 18 March 2021
6. 18 March 2021
7. 18 March 2021
8. 18 March 2021

Comments: Sorabino moved the page without any regard for discussion and against the objection of three TP involved editors who refused to achieve consensus with Sorabino's position on the matter. It is also true that I moved the page month or so ago, but I provided long post with RS as evidence (medievalists from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina whose prime interest was medieval Bosnia, Serbia, Humska zemlja, and nobility of these lands, are my mainstream and still up-to-date and relevant sources, namely, Mihajlo Dinić, Sima Ćirković, Marko Vego and Pavao Anđelić), and my move was not meet with any objection until two days ago when IP's appeared and after IP's were repelled Sorabino appeared. at the time of my move, my reasons were explained in TP without objections, but one of the reason was also that the original name was changed/page was moved in 2011 by the blocked POV-pusher and sockpuppetier known under username Zoupan, who used Ajdebre and Zoupan as sock-accounts to support his edits on the article. This sock moved it to new name, "Duchy of Saint Sava", and even back then that move was strongly objected by User:Joy, User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, but Zoupan change it disregarding these editors' objections. As soon as series of IP's edits were repelled with semi-PP, Sorabino appeared in the next edit, and moved the page (and then even its redirect) without reaching a consensus on TP with already obvious contention, and against three involved editors (Mhare, mikola and myself), all whom objected his position on the matter. Sorabino also misrepresents his intention regarding article's topic and scope, and uses sources in such a way to justify their position and move+edits - he switches his position between alleged intention for article to be on "noble title" vs. "land/country (political entity)", where as article is obviously on "country", with particular name ("Duchy of Saint Sava" or "Duchy of St. Sava") derived by editor from one man noble title (WP:OR). The page is obviously categorized as a country, it uses country infobox, myriad of navboxes refer to it as a country, even greater number of links are used toward the page connecting it as a country/land - by the way, article on this "noble title" would most certainly fail notability threshold, anyway. Further, when Soarbino realized that I am (or anyone else) able to undo their move reverts, they came up with an idea to change the name completely, to rename it from already contested "Duchy of Saint Sava" to "Duchy of St. Sava", but since such name with this "Saint" abbreviation "St." is in existence, they tweaked abbreviation by removing a dot/point from its abbreviation "St". Now we have this article with unreferenced title now using improper English language (MOS:TITLE), "Duchy of St Sava". Additionally Sorabion created series of 5-6 new redirect, directing them to unrelated article, and all that just to obstruct possible move to proper or at least something closely resembling proper name for the article. Sorabino also used my arguments to fix any holes in their argument, like creating series of new redirects to obstruct possibility of further moves or re-names of the article and directed them to unrelated article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• My response will be limited to stating facts:

1. For years, article on the Duchy of Saint Sava was stable, covering history of that medieval feudal polity (15th century). Parallel articles on the same subject also exist on 12 (twelve) other Wikipedia projects.

2. On February 8 (2021), user Santasa99 (my accuser here) renamed the article as "Dukedom of Hum", but then he moved it (on the same day) to "Duchy of Hum", and then renamed it again (3 March) to "Humska zemlja" (Land of Hum), an endonymic term that designates a historical region that is covered in the general article, titled in English as Zachlumia.

3. While moving article from title to title, he was also changing its internal structure and content, totally blurring the original subject (Dutchy of Saint Sava) and scope of the article, that was previously well defined and stable for years.

4. While doing all that, the same user (Santasa99) also tried to perform some similar actions on Bosnian Wikipedia, targeting the parallel article Vojvodstvo Svetog Save, but BW administrators reverted his edits and finally protected the article, stating vandalism. History of edits on BW shows that user Santasa99 tried to abolish the article "Vojvodstvo Svetog Save" and merge it into a general article on the region.

5. Since he was stopped there by BW administrators, he focused on the English article, trying to achieve similar goals on English Wikipedia, but without formal initiation of any move or merge proposals. In discussions on the talk page, it became noticablle that user Santasa99 has a strong disliking for the subject (Duchy of Saint Sava) stating that specific article on that particular subject should not exist, and also claiming that the Duchy in question did not even exist as such in historical reality! In light of sources, such views are quite surprising.

6. Few days ago, when I saw what he was doing, I tried to restore the original title and scope of the article, related to the Duchy of Saint Sava, and I also started to add referenced content on the subject, but that clashed with plans of user Santasa99 for that article, and here we are.

7. I would urge everyone interested here, to take a look at the history of this article and its subject (Duchy of Saint Sava), and also at the history of recent edits (my continuous additions of referenced content, and continuous removals of that content by user Santasa99). Who was the contributor in this case, and who was the disruptor, that would be on administrators to decide. Sorabino (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a goals? What goals? Where and how I said that article of the topic should not exists - can you elaborate, and explain a bit my dislike of the subject? Admin you are mentioning from bs.wiki is currently posting long diatribes at the TP. You did not tried to restore something, you have moved and edited page against objection of User:Mikola22, User:Tezwoo, and User:Mhare (Mhare is, by the way, another bs.wiki admin, who created article there in the first place but supported ALL my edits on their project, but I choose to back-off after admin you are mentioning (AnToni, who is on assault here at TP), started removing everything without any consensus there, just like you did here. If it's relevant for this report on your moves and edits without consensus and against all the objections, you are misrepresenting situation, scope and RS you are supposedly citing in favor of your POV.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my impression that origins of this entire problem are in fact on Bosnian Wikipedia. I am not active there. Sorabino (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to me that User:Sorabino and User:Santasa99 are both edit warring on Humska zemlja and Duchy of St Sava. The most logical admin response is to block both editors, unless either or both can propose a solution that will end the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, since this is in essence an editorial dispute over titles and contents of this article, there are several well-known solutions available to all of us, such as initiation of rename proposals, merge proposals, or delete proposals. It those options were observed, we would not be here now. Sorabino (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I always have suggestion: we start applying proper scholarship and start reading them properly:

and for that here's proper source, written by medievalist in the second part of the 20th century or very late 20th (except one) century (two Serbian and two Bosnian medievalist, all focused principally on Bosnia, Humska zemlja, Herzog of Saint Sava !):

• "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku", 1996, by Siniša Mišić, Professor of the National History of the Middle Ages, University of Belgrade;
• "Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba", 1964, Sima Ćirković (but seminal research and most important on the subject to this day) - the best insight on how Ćirković writes about our article subject is given on pp.336, 337*
• "Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države", 1964 (same), Sima Ćirković; [3]
• "Povijest Humske zemlje", 1937 (but seminal research and relevant today), Marko Vego
• "Humska zemlja, in Studije o teritorijalno političkoj organizaciji srednjovjekovne Bosne", Pavao Anđelić, pp. 239, 240.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

All of those sources are covering the entire history of the medieval Hum region. In all Wikipedia projects, that subject is covered in general articles on the Hum/Zahumlje region, including here on EW where we have the main article: Zachlumia. Term "Humska zemlja" refers to that region, and there is no real need to have a separate article on the subject. What would "Humska zemlja" cover, if not the same region as Zachlumia? Those terms are just synonyms, variant names of the same region. Sorabino (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Santasa99, to avoid a block each of you would have to agree to make no more edits on either of these articles until such time as an agreement in your favor is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorabino, I perceive you are not accepting my offer, because you are not promising to avoid editing these two articles until such time as talk page agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, as I said, there will be no editing on my part, but I hope that proper rename/merge/delete procedures will be initiated by those who want to transform this article (Duchy of Saint Sava). That way, everyone would be able to present thair case, wider community would be included, and we would also have a neutral closer. Sorabino (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are probably aware that I have already desist I don't know how many hours ago, when we had exchange at your TP - I wouldn't post this report otherwise.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And, as you were posting Sorabino was moving-reverting all the new redirects they created, and directed them to inappropriate page.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I created several redirects pointing to article Zachlumia, that is the main article on the entire history of the medieval region of Hum/Zahumlje. What would be the problem with that? Sorabino (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, I have no intention of editing those titles while this process is going on, and until some resolution is reached through proper procedures. Here are some general proposals, that reflect my views on possible solutions:

1. Article on the Duchy of Saint Sava should continue to exist in its stable form, as it does on 12 other Wikipedia projects.

2. If user Santasa99 or anyone else wants to have an article on "Humska zemlja" (that is a different theme, already covered in Zachlumia) they could create such article.

3. Duchy of Saint Sava and "Humska zemlja" are two different subjects, first covered in its own article, and second covered in Zachlumia article, but if user Santasa99 thinks that we should have additional article on "Humska zemlja" besides the main article Zachlumia, he should be free to create such article. So far, he was only replacing and deleting content in Duchy of Saint Sava without any real investment in the very theme he advocates ("Humska zemlja").

4. General remark: title "Humska zemlja" is an endonym, and should not be used as title for any English article anyway. Sorabino (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I hope forcing one's POV onto article against all odds until counterpart simply had to chose to back-off won't be new standard - they are not separate thing because land called "Duchy of Saint Sava" does not exists in RS, only noble title exists.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

And there we have it: pure denialism from user Santasa99. It seems that he does not really care about "Humska zemlja", but just uses that term in order to suppress the article on the Duchy of Saint Sava. Could we get some arbitrage here, from independent users that would assess the article and sources? Sorabino (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino, you were told on talk page to present all the sources and quotes that speak of "Duchy of St Sava" to see what this is about. You didn't do it. Instead, you adding new sources and information's which new independent editor should check it out? But we old not-independent editors don't know what it's about because you didn't present anything on talk page. Sources mentioned some "title" in one sentence. Perhaps some source has two sentences. That's what I could see in the sources. But here we have article about "Duchy". It is possible that this "Duchy" existed but we need sources which talk about it and not the sources who mention the "title". Everything has been told to you in good faith but you do not respect opinion majority of editors. Mikola22 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself, but all further steps regarding this article (Duchy of Saint Sava) should be resolved by proper initiation of rename/merge/delete procedures, that would determine what the position of the community is. So far, talk page discussions included mainly those users who were creating similar problems on Bosnian Wikipedia, but their actions there were reverted by BW administrators, and marked as vandalism. Here on EW, if someone would want to transform this article, they should initiate proper rename/merge/delete procedures. Sorabino (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are the last person who should be calling editors to follow proper procedure, as you blatantly disregarded it against four editors objection in the last two days. You were reverting as we were writing and answering here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That is 100% not true, I did not touch Duchy of St Sava and Humska zemlja since this process was initiated here. It is you who initially moved the article few weeks ago, without RM, and that is the main cause of all these problems. Why did you do that, without RM? All I did was restoring the article in its stable title and form, and adding new and referenced content on the subject. If you think that some article should be renamed/merged/deleted, please initiate proper procedures, so that community could take part in reaching appropriate decisions. Sorabino (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In my case I did not need to go through "Request move" and you have - anyone who is serious, experienced wikipedian and honest broker for the project this fact is obvious from page history.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, the best way to resolve all this is by RM. Any user who wants to rename, merge or delete this article (Duchy of Saint Sava) should initiate an appropriate procedure. Would you consider doing that, in order to resolve these current problems? I can not do that, since I am supporting this article as it is, and as it was in its stable scope since its creation. Some user who wants to change all that should initiate an appropriate procedure. That would be the best way to resolve everything, don't you think? Sorabino (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I am taking EdJohnston's warning very seriously.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, me too, that is why I am proposing you to initiate RM, if you want to rename the article. That would be a step forward from this situation. Sorabino (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not going to do anything anymore, there are other concerned editors there, three of them, and if they care they can try to clear up mess you created with all the new redirects and re-linkings, and your flip-flopping between "it's about noble title, it's about land" justifications, and covering all with inadequate RS.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, can we work together, to resolve this, and improve all relevant articles, and also sort out redirects? For all that some good will is needed. Any user who wants to rename that article can initiate RM. Sorabino (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sorabino and User:Santasa99 are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Humska zemlja or Duchy of St Sava unless they get a prior consensus for their change on an article takl page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JG66 reported by User:Benicio2020 (Result: )

Page: Taxman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JG66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

Editor controlling the article as if he owns it. I made a minor edit to avoid unnecessary bracketing within a direct quote, and he decided that since he owns the page, he will not allow it. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see this as a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG. I was just about to file a report for this user but found something better to do. They made an edit on 17 March, I disagreed and reverted it, so the next step should have been them taking it to the talk page for discussion, per WP:BRD.

As far as their reasoning – "to avoid unnecessary bracketing within a direct quote" – it's not unnecessary, and it's the first I've heard of inserting a bracketed surname being an issue in eight or nine years of editing here. As I know from dozens of GA reviews and looking in on FACs, you don't introduce anyone by their first name only, and when an article has a long lead section, as Taxman does for a song article, you don't assume that everyone always reads even the first paragraph of a lead, either. That's the reason for my reverts, and that's pretty much what I said at the start. If anyone's acting like they own the page and just can't accept any will but their own, I don't think it's me. JG66 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both User:JG66 and User:Benicio2020 have broken WP:3RR. There may still be time for them to respond here and agree to stop warring, to avoid a block for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly agree to stop. (Guess I mistook the approach here as a less reductive one – but it's not AN/I, of course, it's /EW.) JG66 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Traineek reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ WhoAteMyButter I added proper citation and checked inaccuracies and remove the contents not in citation. Kindly advise, thank you"
2. 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012659799 by Aza24 (talk) go check the talk page. do not vandalize the page non stop"
3. 15:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012650704 by Esiymbro (talk) get consensus, do not vandalize"
4. 15:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012639760 by Esiymbro (talk) get consensus in talk page, stop vandalizing the page" (a series of reverts)
5. 14:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1012256714 by Esiymbro (talk) invalid reason, no consensus asked in talk page" (a series of reverts)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC) "/* March 2021 */"
2. Multiple warnings on user talk page last week, around the last time Traineek was blocked for edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) "/* “Han Chinese inhabited Xuantu Commandery” */"

Comments:

There is another report at WP:ANI [50] on other problems related to User:Traineek including personal attacks and talk page misuse, as well as edit warring. However, since the edit warring continues after the it was filed (and Traineek responded) there, I'm also creating a report here so that the more urgent issue of reverts may be solved earlier. Thanks. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as i know, the rule is whoever making an edit need to get consensus in the talk page first. Esiymbro made several changes to the Goguryeo page on 16th March without getting consensus in the talk page. and the question raised by him regarding the citation, has been answered in the talk page. [[51]] and i checked the main tag was added by Esiymbro on 15th March the reason given was false citation which is not true. [[52]] I didn't engage in an edit war. It is Esiymbro continuously sabotaging me knowing that i am new to the wiki page and isn't familiar with all the rules. please check through the edit page and see what happened. thank you --Traineek (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"As far as i know, the rule is whoever making an edit need to get consensus in the talk page first." Nobody has ever told you that, and no Wikipedia policy says that, so I'm at a loss as to why you would think that was the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? So i was sabotaged again by Esiymbro? That was the reason i got blocked from editing for 36 hours. And that's also the reason i have been trying to get consensus in Great wall talk page ever since and engaging in a debate with another Chinese editor over whether there should be controversy section in great wall of China page. Please advise if i can edit the page freely or must get consensus in the talk page before adding content to the page. Thank you. Traineek (talk)