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:Hello Animal reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: No violation)

Page: Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hello Animal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [-37]
2. [+2]
3. [-2]
4. [-3]

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

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

Comments:
User is vandalising the page by giving false information.

• No violation – Not enough reverts in a 24-hour period to show a violation of the WP:3RR rule. You are misusing the term 'vandalism'. If you believe someone has made an incorrect change, you should explain the problem on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Vmakenas reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994217141 by Solavirum (talk)"
2. 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994216846 by Solavirum (talk)"
3. 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994216048 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
4. 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 15:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 15:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "/* One-sided */"

Comments:

The user keeps replacing a whole article with improperly sourced or entirely unsourced content and doesn't properly discuss the issue in the talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like he doesn't even care about the warning I and Curious gave. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The contents of the article have to apply to WP:NOPV. The article in its version supported by CuriousGolden and Solavirum was indeed one-sided, as the arrest of the two persons was called "two people taken hostage". This is obviously one-sided. Vmakenas cannot be blamed for trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides. If there are 2 edit warriors on one side, this does not change the fact that they are themselves edit warriors. -- PhJ (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Calling this incident a terrorist attack, making it look like the unrecognized NKR court had made the right decision, and that Azerbaijan was in the wrong is trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides for you? Nah mate. He could've had just changed hostage to arrest rather than showing this like some sort of a PKK-like raid on peaceful people. Vmakenas's disruptive behaviour is clearly visible here; edit warring, not caring about talk requests, removing warnings on his talk page, and so on. Being an apologist of him/her ain't a okay thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, that wasn't even POV. Armenia has acknowledged that these both were either hostages, or POWs. As they had returned them to Azerbaijan as part of the ceasefire agreement which stated that both sides must exchange hostages or POWs. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – User:Vmakenas was blocked 72 hours by User:Scottywong. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Corriganthe3rd (Result: Both warned)

Page: The Last Frontier (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

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

Comments:
Nicoljaus, a user who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, is up to his old behavior once again, deleting sources information from both the above mentioned page and the Taras Bulba-Borovets page, a page that he has committed edit warring on and been blocked several times before. He does not attempt to resolve his disputes in a civilized manner on talk pages, and resorts to personal attacks instead. Just so we do not have a further rehash of his past behaviors, I am reporting him here. Thanks.Corriganthe3rd (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is is it weird if I ask why an editor with 42 edits has the concerns that you do? For a brand new editor that has been here for four months, You seem to be very familiar with the editor in question. Beach drifter (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I came across the user after noticing his disruptive behavior on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page. I investigated his block log shortly afterwards. I have no particular interest in him other than that he stop edit warring with me. Corriganthe3rd (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. User:Nicoljaus and User:Corrignthe3rd are both edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, EdJohnston. I warned a colleague Corriganthe3rd, but he removed my messaage with the comment Deleted vandalism. He also made statements like this in another article, deleting my text:
• Undid vandalism
• Undid vandalism
• Undid vandalism
• Undid edits of disruptive user.

I opened the topic on the article talk page: [5], but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article ([6]), because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Azmarai76 reported by User:Majavah (Result: Warned)

Page: Mirza Masroor Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Azmarai76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
2. 11:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
3. 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
5. 11:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mirza Masroor Ahmad."
2. 11:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* December 2020 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* He isn't Caliph of Islam but only Ahmadiyaa */ Reply"

Comments:

Constantly adding old maintenance categories and adding {{dubious}}. Refusing to discuss on the talk page. Majavah (talk!) 11:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Majavah please let me know who is Messiah according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs??? Is that Jesus Christ or Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and please don't remove the tags without discussion. Tags like are for nothing else but discussion which others along with you removed after threatening me to be blocked not in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

Regards User:Azmarai76

User:Majavah titles like Amirul Momineen is also a bit too much Islamic world has no Caliph (Amirul Momineen) right now. Please do understand Edit War also any editor can see if I have changed anything in the text or just put tags to alot of ambiguous statements in this article ??? Regards User:Azmarai76

• I came from that discussion and it just tells that User:Azmarai76 is unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia policies and standards regarding it. It was also previously observed by admin @EdJohnston: in a discussion on my talkpage. There may be some inability on his part too in this. But anyhow I think he may only be warned to comply with Wikipedia policies and standards by referring to policies involving there in the matter. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Azmarai76 is warned for edit warring, and has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. If they continue to add 'dubious' tags to this page, or add the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article to maintenance categories, they are risking an article ban. The 'caliph' uproar is due to an unexpected result from some Google searches, and is documented at WP:CALIPH. We understand that some people don't consider the adherents of Ahmadiyya to be real Muslims, even though they consider themselves Muslim. But that is not an issue for Wikipedia. We just summarize what has been reported by reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Noname JR reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994417774 by C.Fred (talk) Arabic and tamazight are official languages in Algeria"
2. 16:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994412937 by M.Bitton (talk)"
3. 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994405434 by M.Bitton (talk) Tamazight is an official language, it's mandatory to have transcription through"
4. 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994388622 by M.Bitton (talk) I let a comment, same for Algeria same for Morocco"
5. 07:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994343441 by Power~enwiki (talk) What are official languages in Algeria ?"
6. 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994328659 by Nkon21 (talk)Official languages are arabic and tamazight"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Algeria."
2. 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC) "/* ANI Notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Tamazight */ re"

Comments: Hi, Tamazight is an official language in Algeria (like in Morocco), so why do you revert transcription about it?--Noname JR (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the situation at Talk:Algeria. Your edits have overwritten some information and removed templates that are used for foreign languages. At any rate, you cannot unilaterally make this change: you must get consensus at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: They are only interested in edit warring. They have just reverted your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours from Algeria only. I went with the partial block in the hope that they will engage in constructive discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User:199.185.67.123 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Fortnite World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 199.185.67.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 18:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 18:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "It was realized he cheated so the next player won. I feel bad for bugha."
4. 18:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user in question was repeatedly substituting the name of the tournament winner ('Bugha') without providing a source for a different name ('Suhaas'), when the original name was sourced. Giraffer ^munch 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked: Six months for vandalism by User:Materialscientist. See also the IP's edit filter log. This is a school IP from Edmonton, Alberta. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum reported by User:PhJ (Result: Page protected)

Page: Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7], [8], [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

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

--- PhJ (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment the user is clearly trying to manipulate the guidelines. See my edit explanations and how PhJ voided discussing this and achieving any kind of a WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I had re-reverted myself about twenty minutes before this request. If anyone needs to be blocked editing, its PhJ, who's been edit warring, avoiding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRDDISCUSS, not even taking a look at my attempts to bring him to the talk page. 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding consensus means, in an article about a conflict, giving all opinions of the parties involved in an appropriate manner. That is what Solavirum refuses to do. He wants to push the Azeris' POV. There were older, more neutral versions of the article, as well as versions tagged with the POV or Multiple Issues template. Reverting to a POV version is edit warring. -- PhJ (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That version was established by Scottywong, an administrator and a third-party editor, and you reverted his edits too. The more neutral versions of the article you're referring to was making the topic look like a terrorist attack and the editor who added that is already blocked for violating the guidelines. What PhJ does is avoiding any kind of a discussion and edit warring. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And in any case, this report should be disregarded, as when the report was filed, I had reverted myself twenty minutes ago. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Agree with PhJ, what SolaVirum is doing in that article is clearly POV-pushing, by removing ALL info from Armenian or neutral sources and adding only Azeri or Turkish sources.--HCPUNXKID 14:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not adding any Turkish sources, I've only added BBC article to the article. Secondly, no, I'm telling PhJ to achieve consensus before publishing such controversial edits. He's calling the incident a multiday terrorist attack (which is a laughable claim). In any case, even if your statement was true, this application is still a false flag. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The user has reverted their 4th revert, meaning they haven't broken WP:3RR, anything else about alleged POV doesn't belong in this noticeboard. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with PhJ, Solavirum seems to have a big POV-pushing problem, simply deleting sources that confirm information he doesn't like. He removed multiple sources on the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article of Arayik Harutyunyan saying Azerbaijan was targeting civilians in the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, his reason simply being "happened right after first attack" even though the bombardment took place a week later. When @Sataralynd: added it back saying this is key information, Solavirum again removed it, saying "has no place in the background". He tried removing it again as it was being discussed on the talk page, and when Sataralynd there was no consensus for removing it and this violates NPOV, Solavirum didn't even bother to explain his continued edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Those were added without any kind of a consensus. We reached a consensus. And its there, though with additional information necessary to show that Artsakh authorities saying that they were afraid that even archaeologists will not be able to find the place of Ganja. However, is this even related to this application? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, Solavirum has a very different understanding of "consensus" than general people in a democratic country. In the case of this article, the Ganja article and other article where Solavirum is "working" on, there is clearly NO consensus on the statements Solavirum is placing in the WP articles. -- PhJ (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:115.164.93.149 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Key (cryptography) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 115.164.93.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"
2. 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
   2. 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
4. 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"
5. 10:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmmm"
6. Consecutive edits made from 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmm"
   2. 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Key (cryptography)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring vandal. Giraffer ^munch 10:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Callanecc for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Ruggero reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Shooting of Cannon Hinnant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "OK I’ll give it to you. However, just like in the George Floyd wikipedia page, the races of the victim and the suspect are worth noting. The races were in the source too."
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Nope, I never stated that is 100% the reason for the killing, it is just what it seems due to what was happening at the current time. Do not revert the edit."
   2. 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
3. 16:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 16:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shooting of Cannon Hinnant."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Andrew Ruggero has been warned after several times making inflammatory, false statements in the above article, including alleging (without a source) that it was an act of "black supremacy" and then further violated NPOV by adding the races of those involved to the lead, leading to undue weight and and an implication that this was a racially motivated crime, which has been discussed on the talk page over and over again. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:213.205.194.98 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page: London Beer Flood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 213.205.194.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994638781 by Johnbod (talk) Why remove correct and sourced information? I know IP editors are not welcome here, but the ethos of “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” still lives with some of us"
2. 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994637726 by Johnbod (talk) No, I am not that editor: I am an IP editor. Looking at the two references you have added, p233 of the work makes no mention of this (ie. fails verification); the second is not a reliable source. If you do find reliable sources to back up rampion, I think you should respect CITEVAR and add any references in the consistent formatting"
3. 19:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Please follow WP:CITEVAR and use the same formatting as the rest of the article. As a featured work, it should have the basics correct"
4. 19:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994633682 by Johnbod (talk) as already mentioned, please find a source - you can’t add things without a proper reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Beer Flood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No one, not me, the edit-warring registered editor, or this person leaving one-sided threats, has opened a thread. And I’m the one who is up to be blocked? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Requested full-protection at RFPP minutes before the 3rd and 4th revert happened. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• As I have answered when threatened on my talk page: I’m sorry, but are you serious? You leave a threat for only one side of a disagreement but not the person that is adding unsourced material into an FAC, then using an unreliable source and a source that doesn’t back up what they are claiming? And yet you come to kick the IP editor, not a registered editor. It’s not a great surprise, but they are also edit warring, and they are damaging the article when they do so. What gives, exactly? I will repeat: a registered editor has added unsourced material which I removed. He edit warred it back in. Should it be left there in a featured article? Should we leave it there when he reverted again and added a source that doesn’t show what he claims and an unreliable source? According to Tbhotch, it’s ok to threaten the IP editor for edit warring, but the registered editor, despite their edit warring, doesn’t get the same treatment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994633682&oldid=994633351 1st revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&type=revision&diff=994636303&oldid=994634434 2nd revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994637726&oldid=994636963 3rd revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994638781&oldid=994638130 Vandalism (correct and sourced information being deliberately removed.

Is this appropriate behaviour? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring." And you are right, John has reverted 3 times now. Therefore I will add a 3rr warn and it's up to them to decide if they want to re-revert you. [15] This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

213.205.194.98 has four reverts in 32 minutes, blocked for 72 hours. I'm leaving this open in case anyone wants to take action on the other party, Johnbod, to whom I'll just say this: it's not OK to edit-war, regardless of the provocation, regardless of who's right, regardless of the exact fiscal number of reverts. Edit-warring is harmful to the project, please just stop doing it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say my edits were doing different things: adding text, then adding a ref, then another, then removing the original sentence, which was misleading without the extra stuff I was trying to add, and hardly relevant (concerning events 150 years later). At every stage I was just reverted by the ip. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:EPicmAx4 reported by User:CycloneYoris (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2020 Pacific hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EPicmAx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 20:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994645876 by CycloneYoris (talk) You are free to think whatever you want about how active season was, but Wikipedia will not recognize it, so please stop reverting."
3. 20:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994645492 by CycloneYoris (talk) What other measures are there?"
4. 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994644192 by CycloneYoris (talk) 2017 has 18 storms to the Atlantic's 17 and 2019 had 19 storms to the Atlantic's 18."
5. 19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 Pacific hurricane season."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been given a warning for edit warring and has been told to solve this on the article's page but they keep on reverting for no reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment It appears that the editor in question also tried to revert again under an IP address to try and get their way. The editor has also removed all warnings, and the ANI notification on their talk-page. The user is however, attempting to discuss the edit warring on the appropriate talk page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. This user also appears to be reverting while logged out. If that continues they could be risking a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SammyWaffle! reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Cabinet of Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994649989 by Muboshgu (talk)"
2. 20:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994649498 by Muboshgu (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994634322 by PCN02WPS (talk)"
   2. 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "added political affiliations"
   3. 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994640671 by 73.82.183.136 (talk)"
   2. 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994640223 by Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk)"
5. 15:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994579344 by BazingaFountain42 (talk)"
6. 13:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"
2. 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cabinet of Joe Biden."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Initiating this finally got SammyWaffle to use a talk page. Sadly, what they chose to say suggests WP:NOTHERE to me. See their past disruptive edits from earlier in the month. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

SammyWaffle has [16] in an uncivil manner on my talk page to complain about my reversion of their [17] on Marjorie Taylor Greene where they added insults and removed the existing content in the "Gun control" section. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 21:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I was called a "karen" on my talk page by SammyWaffle here and that the user seems to be creating a Wikipedia page of themself here. I agree with Muboshgu's assessment of WP:NOTHERE. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And now this. Blocked indef. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:wallyfromdilbert reported by User:BazingaFountain42 (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994512406
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994647761
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994651425
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994652493

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

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

Comments:
Why is @Wallyfromdilbert: concentrating only on that one bio article? He hasn't been making the same reverts at the other Biden nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears a relatively new editor is showing up at the page and an edit war resulted. BazingaFountain42 appears to have made at least 4 reverts just today. Perhaps just lock the article and let the new editor know that once a change has been reverted the next step is the talk page. Springee (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: In this situation though, the new editor was in the right. He was merely lining up the bio article, with the other Biden cabinet nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• This article was brought to BLPN where this RfC seemed to have a clear consensus against using "nominee" in the infobox, in favor of either "presumptive nominee" (or similar langauge) or removing the infobox until the nominations are officially made after the inauguration. GoodDay and BazingFountain42 have been edit warring on various pages, which is part of the reason why the one page was brought to BLPN in the first place. In the RfC, only one other person agreed with GoodDay that infoboxes should include a "nominee" status before the nominations are made after the inauguration. Also, despite GoodDay's claims, not all of Biden's future nominees have had their infoboxes updated, including Jennifer Granholm, which was part of a recent ANI thread regarding BazingaFountain42. I believe I did go over 3RR on the Blinken page but there were several intermediary edits by BazingaFountain42 that I reverted because they were clearly vandalism: [18] [19]. I have only reverted 3 times since then, as two of the diffs above are consecutive edits by me. Not sure what BazingaFountain42's reason is for the numerous reverts that included those vandalism edits. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, the vandalism was on accident. My computer had a browser extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", and I realized that shortly after and removed the vandalism and corrected the article to have Blinken shown as the nominee. I can't believe I have to say that again. It's incredibly frustrating that you keep bringing that up because I have admitted my mistake, acknowledge the reason for it and am no longer making said mistake. Furthermore, the reason why there was the discussion on whether or not we should have Granholm listed as the nominee was because she hasn't been officially announced yet, whereas Blinken has been officially announced. It wasn't on whether or not we should have her listed as the nominee because Biden hasn't yet been inaugurated. Context is everything. Excluding Granholm (since her nomination has not yet been officially announced by the Biden transition team), literally every single on of Biden's nominees has the position for which they have been nominated and "Nominee" in their infobox. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't edited the Blinken article for days, out of frustration with your constant reverts. PS - Granholm has not yet been announced as a cabinet nominee, btw. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CycloneYoris reported by User:EPicmAx4 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2020 Pacific hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
EPicmAx4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Please note that this report is invalid. As this user was the one that provoked the same edit war that I reported above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  CycloneYoris, the report is not invalid. Please keep WP:3RR in mind; see WP:DISCFAIL for an essay that may be very helpful in such situations.

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Austintexas000aaaa reported by User:Grayfell (Result:Checkuser blocked)

Page: Elder of Ziyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Austintexas000aaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994655303 by SecularSourcworks (talk) just undoing his edit to your edit"
2. 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Better Source. And yes, being nominated for a Nobel matters."
3. 20:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992583939 by Zero0000 (talk), we report the facts, we don't decide being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize doesn't matter"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Austintexas000aaaa is a conspicuously new account editing Elder of Ziyon to restore badly-sourced content added by another conspicuously new account a couple weeks ago. The article has a template for 30/500 and WP:1RR as a Palestine-Israel article. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sock. I've blocked and reverted the article back to the version prior to the socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Normchou reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

Page: Chang'e 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Returning to Earth */ Incorrect synthesis; manually revert"
2. 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Landing site */ Fixed inaccruate synthesis"
3. 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994603617 by Albertaont (talk) The specific allusion to the Luna 15 and Luna 16 highlights the different roles that robots have played in the previous moon race vs. the current one. It is necessary elaboration for understanding McDonald's conclusion."
4. 06:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994536527 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
5. 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994535855 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Chang'e 5."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the two edit summaries dating from around 06:10 UTC today, a blatant disregard of WP:VANDNOT CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Normchou#December_2020, [22] for my conversation with @CaradhrasAiguo: who created this report. I believe this act of that user was done in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM principle: The focus of this report is your crossing of the 3RR red line, not anything else. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is actually wrong. See WP:SHOT#There is no "immunity" for reporters. Normchou (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please pay particular attention to the timestamps in my talk page. This report was created right after that user made a number of accusations against me, but none of them were related to the discussion of a potential edit war. I believe they are acting in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The reporting user's allusion to WP:NOTTHEM above is deemed inappropriate. The block (should there be one) has not yet occurred, and I am not requesting an unblock here. Once again, if one pays attention to the timestamps, including those of the diffs and this complaint, it would be evident that a block is unnecessary. Normchou (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Normchou (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Please provide conclusive evidence that either CaradhrasAiguo or myself is acting in bad faith, pretty serious allegation here. Albertaont (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion of acting in bad faith is only pertinent to the reporting user. "That user" merely refers to the user who filed this complaint. Normchou (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In reality there are different weights of evidence rather than the dichotomy of "conclusive" vs. "inconclusive", which could mean different things to different people anyway. Regarding this specific matter, some of the evidence has already been supplemented in the above thread as well as on my user talk page. It is up to the admin to decide the weight of evidence. Normchou (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sexismcorrector23 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Peter Sutcliffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sexismcorrector23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]

Comments:
Multiple users have Warned this editor, and the editor reverted immediately after they were warned. VViking_TalkEdits 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I concur that edit warring has happened, but the editor has stopped following the final warning, and appears to be engaging in discussion now. I will have a talk with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, if no one else objects I think this has been taken care of. VViking_TalkEdits 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Halbared reported by User:Vpab15 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Kingdom of Northumbria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Halbared (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]
5. [35]
6. [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] and [38]

Comments:

Me and other editor tried to engage with Halbared, but he just kept reverting our changes, six times in total. Vpab15 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested arbitration by an admin, shirt58. But I don't mind any admin popping over and advising. I'd like to assume good faith by the above, it just seemed a tad suspicious to request for examples and then edit them.Halbared (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've also requested a look by AmandaNP, I'll abide by any third set of admin eyes, I may have gotten too close.Halbared (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Halbared self-reverted and we'll both accept third party opinion. This report can be closed as far as I am concerned. Vpab15 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Hugo.arg reported by User:Ke an (Result: Filer indeffed)

Page: Kėdainiai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hugo.arg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994863234&oldid=994862471&diffmode=source

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994936889&oldid=994863234
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939490&oldid=994939423&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939934&oldid=994939750&diffmode=source

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hugo.arg&diff=994940212&oldid=991093625&diffmode=source

Comments:

User Hugo.arg keeps malisiouly reverting obvious factual information for no reason. Name Kėdainiai is a Lithuanian name, which had transcriptions in other languages. This fact is maliciously and withour arguments deleted. -- Ke an (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not transcription. Polish and Russian names were OFFICIAL writing forms of Lithuanian settlements prior 1918. Also, they are not a phonetic transcription but rather an adaptation based on Lithuanian pronunciation. Also, by removing them user:Ke an removed notable Jewish people born in Kėdainiai. Also, it is worth to notice what User:Ke an is removing other historical (and formerly official) names of Lithuanian settlements although there is a wide practice in Wikipedia to use alternate names (see Lviv, Hradec Kralove) even if they are a product of short lived occupation. In this case, German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries, till 1918, and there standartized only c. 1950. Hugo.arg (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There were no OFFICIAL toponyms. Lithuania was occupied several times and that doesn't mean the derivative names in other languages were "official". Lithuanian form of Kėdainiai recorded at least in 17th century in written form. It should be clearly stated that form in which language is original, but Hug.arg defends a policy of cultural appropriation and places all names in all possible languages as equivalent and "official" and deletes all references to its original Lithuanian form. He executes this practise in his massive edits in almost all Lithuania towns and villages. I see it is a practise with a doubtfull unknown purpose defending point of view that Lithuania toponyms are somehow "invented" or even standartised in 1950 (!). 99 percent toponyms in Lithuania have Lithuanian (Baltic) origins and placing them as derivative or "standartised lately" with recorded forms in other languages is misguiding at least. French, Dutch and Spanish also have derivative names of Lithuanian toponyms and that doens't mean we should stuff everything into the English (particularly English) page. There are pages in the corresponding languages. The statement "German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries" is obviously wrong. Different nations used Lithuanian transcriptions (better or worse) for their needs, but that doens't mean those 3 languages were used especially for Lithuanian toponyms.
Also, Hugo.arg argues, that he puts toponyms in all possible languages in Wikipedia just beacause it is important for some reasearch he executes and it would be easier to find toponyms for him. I don't understand that selfish approach.
There is a page on Wikipedia for Lithuanian toponyms and their derivative forms and I think it works perfectly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Lithuanian_places_in_other_languages
The practise for putting toponyms in other languages as equivalent or even as "more historical" also violates the laws of Lithuania:
https://www.eki.ee/knn/ungegn/bd3_ltov.htm
Regarding the notability - I have removed some representatives with a doubtfull notability (usually very local or notable in narrow communities) not matter their belonging.

-- Ke an (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Ke an got sufficient explanations at the talk page, and, given long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV) it is best to block them, choosing the duration according to the previous blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, you are supposed to give arguments, not your nationalistic biased view.There is nothing nationalist in my explanations. It is very sad that such persons as Ymblanter, promoting and representing Russian chauvinism in every possible discussion related Lithuania and the Baltis tates are infiltrated into Wikipedia amdinistrators. So my objection to this type of "administrators". They do much harm to WIkipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you see Russian chauvinism in my edits, but this is one more argument to get you blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Your bias and chauvinism, low discussion ethics disqualifies you from judging states previously occupied by Russia --- Ke an (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I obviously disagree with pretty much every word of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: any thoughts?

I see here just a clear promoting of his POV by the user:Ke an - not as it is or was but how it should be ignoring everything, as Lithuania in 1918 would had been created in an empty place. Rather of your stubborn promoting of your POV which will lead nowhere (except to your block) you could expand "etymology" sections for the Lithuanian settlements to prove their Baltic origin. But you are not concerned of scholar things (as I understand your knowledge of comparative and historical linguistics are close to zero) but just about promoting your propaganda which is kind of distorted view to the history imagining that Standard Lithuanian existed from the 10th century. There were, in fact, various dialects and no written form of them till the 19th century. The same toponym could be pronounced differently depending on dialect and even interpretation. During the interwar period and at the early Sovet era there were a long process of "re-Lithuanization" of these toponyms. Even the same toponym often were re-Lithuaized in different ways (ex. Polish: Malinowka at some cases there Lithuanized as "Malinovka", at some cases "translated" as "Avietynė" and at some cases as "Molynė"). Some toponyms were Lithuanized in such way that nobody uses them in spoken language (ex. a local village near Kėdainiai officialy is Paobelys but I heard it pronounced only as Padūbėlė, not counting the dialect forms as Utieka is in fact pronounced only as Ucieka). Russian, Polish and German forms are very useful information for historical linguistics and shoul not be removed just for an aim to run away from own past. Hugo.arg (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Ke an, has been indef blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights for nationalist POV pushing and personal attacks. Action was taken per Ymblanter's complaint at ANI. Given Ke an's statements above, and what appear to be their nationalist edits of the past two days, this action doesn't come as a complete surprise. (They have been removing dozens of Polish names for places in Lithuania, some of whose articles were newly created by Hugo.arg). Ymblanter said (above) 'long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV)' and it's hard to disagree with that assessment. In case anyone is interested, the advice for place names is given in WP:NCPLACE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Renner3774 reported by User:Paul Carpenter (Result: Blocked (partial) 72 hours)

Page: James Renner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Renner3774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 16:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 15:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 04:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 03:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "Complete MAT action (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This appears to be a single purpose account adding the same POV content with no attempt made at communicating with the editors removing it. A warning about POV edits was given by C.Fred but ignored. I should also point out that the reverting editor, CaraDino doesn't appear to have made an attempt to reconcile either, although they are currently just on the right side of the 3RR. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Partial block applied only to the James Renner article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Democratic Progressive Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995010578 by DrIdiot (talk) I close the neutrality issue from September 2020 and open the neutrality issue in December 2020. {{POV|date=December 2020}}"
2. 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994976359 by DrIdiot (talk) Neutrality section is still open on the talk page"
3. 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994833214 by DrIdiot (talk) see talk- neutrality is disputed"
4. 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994814571 by DrIdiot (talk) Correct- the article is not neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */ ."

Comments:

User has had a prior partial block from the page. From WP:STICK-style posts such as this, the corresponding talk page should be added to the partial block, too. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Geographyinitiative to agree to stop his long-term fight about the simplified characters in Democratic Progressive Party. If he won't agree to stop, I think an indefinite block should be considered. If you have any hope this will get resolved otherwise take a look at his recent comments in Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#Neutrality is disputed. It seems that nothing whatever will suffice to change his mind on this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef. Given his response to my final offer it is clear that Geographyinitiative is never going to stop. Editors have also requested admin action about Geographyinitiative at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:31.127.148.247 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Mexico City policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&oldid=995030617

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=994981947
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995032268
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995036430

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnooganssnoogans&type=revision&diff=995038395&oldid=994856612

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995030568 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995034397

Comments:

I've pointed out that a strong claim in the article isn't supported by the articles cited, and changed the language to be more tentative. Snooganssnoogans is repeatedly and aggressively reverting my change without engaging properly on the talk page (despite multiple invitations to discuss).

• 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.. Based on the discussion, the IP editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page rather than attempting to force through a change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Pasdecomplot (Result:Declined )

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

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

Previous versions by reporter: reporter's version before reverts

reporter's version before reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [41]
2. "Political_re-education_awaits_monks_and_nuns..."

Comments:
Would rather not bring the issue to AN, but RfC would not be a viable forum. The user's first revert's edit summary does not accurately describe the revert nor the RS. The second revert by user was performed before user replied at either of the two talk discussions, after being asked to bring the issues to both talks [42]. Please note that while this AN was being prepared, the user finally went to talk, but with statements which either don't address the reverts, or question RS, apparently based on their opinion. I'd add that ASPIRE applies to the reply at talk. Thanks for any help you can give. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

An instant WP:BOOMERANG for the reporter is in order, based on the apparently based on their opinion remark alone, a violation of their editing restriction to not comment on the motivations of other editors outside of WP:AN/I, as formally logged by @Barkeep49: and proposed by @Valereee:. Not only are they barely 24 hours off a month-long block and off to reverting (1K bytes+: 1, 2), but a few days before the block, was caught distorting the source wording. PdC's refusal to acknowledge RS\N input on their advocacy sources, which is to be applied to Tibetan Political Review, is a clear long-term WP:IDHT conduct, as is the brazen attempt (see last diff) to pass Warren W. Smith as a historian writing at Tibetan Political Review, to obscure Smith's Radio Free Asia affiliation.

Not only is the report frivolous, the timeline suggested while this AN was being prepared is false as well. My initial talk page post in response occurred at 23:22, whereas PdC's latest revert occurred at 23:23. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Declined I see both parties have started a talk page discussion. That's good. More of that and less of discussion through edit summaries please. Also I see no violation of the editing restriction the filing party is under at this point. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

My response below was being prepared as Barkeep49 decided to decline:

• This is AN.
• The subject is Nyingchi.
• The talk discussions are factual and indicate this AN is definitely not "frivolous".
• Multiple APERSIONS are unfounded.
• RSNB discussion is being honored, even though the closing clearly states each source needs to be presented individually for separate discussions. That's why Tibetan Review and Tibetan Political Review are the RS.
• I know nothing about the author Smith's alleged affiliations with other media outlets. Tibetan Political Review is the RS, thus the characterization of "brazen attempt" and 'IDHT conduct" is not based on WP:AOGF.
• The "Tourism" talk discussion was posted hours before the 1st revert. No pings to me were made on either talk, and the 2nd revert was immediately after notice was given of both talks.
• The RS fully supports the edits, whereas the reasons for the reverts given in the edit summaries are definitely misleading.
• My original edits from more than a month ago have been re-edited since. Thus, I haven't been "caught distorting the source wording". For example, the RS in "Tourism" isn't from Radio Free Asia, yet someone added it as a link. In fact, I corrected misleading editing today on the political re-education RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss content so much of that response is better served on the article talk page than here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen the AN and have an uninvolved administrator review it, Barkeep49. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As I explained when you asked I responded mainly to decline the idea that you had violated your editing restriction and I am an uninvolved administrator. I have only interacted with you in an administrative role and so I am uninvolved per our policy on involved/uninvolved. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User: TranscendentMe reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48][49]

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

Comments:

New editor is refusing to discuss a ~3,200 byte section removal, edit warring instead and they are at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

Page: Matt Mowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995185872 by Bonadea (talk)"
2. 18:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995183569 by Bonadea (talk)"
3. 17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995179343 by Denisarona (talk)"
4. 17:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995176772 by Acroterion (talk)"
5. 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 995170228 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "cmt"
2. 18:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Matt Mowers."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) on User talk:PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! "cmt"

Comments:

Brand-new account creating an unsourced, poorly written BLP on a redirect page, and ignoring all advice about creating a draft. Warning about edit warring after their third revert, 3RR warning after the fourth revert, but since they reverted again, I'm reporting them here. bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User was blocked by Acroterion for 48 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Magnovvig reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: )

Page: Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Magnovvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

Concerned about the neutrality of the page and province-specific issues, I removed certain information and moved information to province-specific pages on COVID-19. User reverted my changes. I admittedly reverted these (which I should not of) and decided to refrain from edit warring and begin a discussion on the talk page. I have notified said user. Page is broken off from a protected page, but Timeline article is not protected. I have recently removed a NPOV notice as well, as some information for example talks of "COVID-19 concentration camps" seems highly contentious. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry CaffeinAddict. My reasoning is contained in my edit summaries, which are available here. I cannot be considered to have started an edit war because, as the material in question has been extant for many days if not months, the one who desires to change the wiki page must bring his/her arguments to the talk page before making changes. Magnovvig (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)