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

Page: Conservative Political Action Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Feb 27 at 22:19 UTC: [2] Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
2. Feb 27 at 23:00 UTC: [3] Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
3. Feb 27 at 23:21 UTC: [4] Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
4. Feb 28 at 21:47 UTC: [5] Removing background information about Nazi rune.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This discussion was initiated on the user talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d started the talk page discussion.

Comments:
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d has been applying the brakes to this article to keep it from reflecting negative press from recent events, but the sources are good, and the stories can be developed within Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came to my user talk page here to discuss the issue. I replied that I could see the close proximity to a 3RR violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d saw my warning and replied. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• In revert one & three, I simply removed content sourced to a clear unreliable source (i.e, WP:FORBESCON). And in revert two, there was no citation whatsoever (the edits reverted in revert 2 and 3 were added by a newly created SPA). As the filer mentioned, I was the one who started the talk page discussion and I have been trying to gain consensus, along with another user, for excluding the material from the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• And the filer is correct. I went to their talk page because I didn't want to edit war. In my last revert, I didn't remove the entire section again--I removed only a few sentences tangentially related to the topic. I saw no consensus for including those few sentences so, per WP:NOCON, I removed it for the time being and I justified that removal on the talk page. I thought that would be a decent compromise between outright deletion and full retention of the content. The user who originally inserted those sentences decided to revert my revert and falsely accuse me of "vandalism" in the edit summary [7]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• For the record, I was not the only one who had removed the edits. At least four other users had removed the edit: [8], [9], [10], [11]. And on the talk page I currently do not see a clear consensus to include the material. I do apologize for the excessive reverts on my part. And if I was asked, I would have happily self-reverted my last revert. For some reason, I thought I was exempted from 3RR when reverting unsourced or unreliably sourced edits (though that may only apply to BLPs?). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• On another note, the filer had been edit-warring on Odal (rune) trying to repeatedly insert the exact same text as on the CPAC page: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d is warned for edit warring on Conservative Political Action Conference. You may be blocked if you revert again without receiving a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Diffs of the filer's addition and reverts:

1. 18:29, 27 February 2021 [16] original insert of rune material
2. 03:47, 28 February 2021‎ [17] restores rune material
3. 00:17, 1 March 2021 [18] restores rune material
4. 15:18, 1 March 2021‎ [19] restores rune material

So the filer is "an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version" and the talk page shows it's still true there is no consensus to include. I'm not suggesting warning the filer too, but asking you to reconsider the warning against the filer's opponent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d made four reverts within a 24-hour period which breaks 3RR. Though Binksternet also made four reverts they were over a span of days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, You are correct; I did break 3RR on CPAC. But are you sure the filer didn't break 3RR on Odal (rune)? Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, Partial Revert 4. This seems to be within a 24 hour period. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: So... You're looking to extract revenge? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of that comment was? The filing here is about your behavior, not that of others. SQL^{Query me!} 00:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: This tactic is...ill-advised.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, SQL Revenge? Not at all. I avoid drama boards as much as humanly possible. I sincerely was puzzled whether or not the filer broke 3RR on that article. The only reason I brought up the edits on the Odal (rune) article was because those are the same exact edits he inserted on the CPAC article. I didn't realize that the filer is exempt from boomerangs on this noticeboard. My apologies to both of you if I gave the wrong impression. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mellk reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: No action)

Page: Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mellk (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. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
First two diffs provided is from 19 February, third diff is from 23 February, fourth diff is from today, 2 March. The user I reverted, Caretaker John, was confirmed by CU to be a sockpuppet and was blocked (see investigation and the user's talk page). Reverting edits by a banned user is also an exemption to edit warring, as stated by point 3 in WP:3RRNO. Bacondrum, however, stated that I made a "false claim" of sockpuppetry, when obviously this is not true. The user also previously falsely accused me of violating 3RR, saying I already "crossed the 3RR redline" when they left a warning when that was also not true and this was acknowledged at ANI here. Mellk (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

it’s never been explained who was a sock puppet, and a number of other editors have contested Mellk’s reversions, so unless they are all socks then this is no excuse. Mellk needs to stop edit warring, claiming one editor involved is a sock does not excuse edit warring, discussion rather than edit warring is the solution. (Mellk still has not made it clear who the sock is)

I undid all of the sockpuppet's edits, who made many other additions to the article that were never touched or mentioned prior. What you are referring to was added by Caretaker John in the first place and last restored by him after a different user reverted this addition. I also clarified on your talk page who was a sockpuppet by linking to Caretaker John's talk page, but your response was instead to still pretend to not know who I was talking about. And again, your diffs of my edits range over a period of almost two weeks, while you made three reverts within 24h (1, 2, 3). It seems to me that it is you who was edit warring. Mellk (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Administrative Comment Bacondrum, Mallk reverted a sock puppet (and more socks) bent on pushing the term fascist onto the infobox of the article. You and some editors are depending on unverified sources to push the same – some even vouching on the talk page for Encyclopaedia Britannica as the quintessential reliable source. You do know that Drmies has blocked one more sock in the meanwhile attempting the same drivel. At the same time, you don't generally seem to be a bad editor. What's going wrong here and what am I missing here? Lourdes 14:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• I know Bacondrum as a decent editor, and Mellk was indeed reverting someone who was obviously a sock; I don't know if they know that. That's all I have to say on this matter. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lourdes and Drmies, I didn't notice the link Mellk had inserted into their comment. As far as I could see Mellk was being aggressive and edit warring despite several editors disagreeing with them. I see now that Caretaker John was a sockpuppet, but only now. Mellk could explain themselves better rather than repeatedly reverting. Bacondrum 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You didn't assume good faith, you didn't check and assumed that I made a false claim. Not sure how you didn't notice the link, but here I mentioned Caretaker John by name ("The user I reverted, Caretaker John, was confirmed by CU to be a sockpuppet") and your response was "it’s never been explained who was a sock puppet" and "Mellk still has not made it clear who the sock is". Mellk (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

so myself and my very best wishes are also socks? One editor in the debate was a sock, that doesn’t give you carte blanch to edit war and be uncivil. Bacondrum 02:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was not the case. Rather you decided to write about your suspicions about me being a civil POV pusher, falsely accused me of violating 3RR, and you reverted three times within 24 hours, including where you made your own edit removing content because of a "tautology" (also acknowledged at ANI) and when someone else undid this, you decided to revert them. And then you assumed I made up a lie about sockpuppetry and only until other admins acknowledged the sockpuppet, did you acknowledge this. I am not sure what you have against me, but please, just let it go already. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both of you are productive editors. Please don't be aggressive towards each other. Rather than reverting continuously (both of you), please continue the discussions on the talk page. Work collaboratively (which you have normally done on the talk page) and bury the hatchets for now. I am closing this report with the hope and confidence that you both will shake hands and move ahead with editing. Feel free to reach out in case you need further assistance. It would be a good time to see WP:DR. Thanks, Lourdes 03:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:1FA0:4A7:B9C3:0:50:38C8:F501 reported by User:Czello (Result: Semi)

Page: National Front (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:1FA0:4A7:B9C3:0:50:38C8:F501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 10:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 10:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warned by Slatersteven on talk page. Follow ups here and here. No attempt at communication — Czello 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned and also told about BRD. Also a whiff of SPA, as they only seem to want to whitewash various far-right parties.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. Let me know if you see this IP editor being active on other political pages. A block of the /64 for edit warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sir-Namo-of-Lomax reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)

Page: House of Commons of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir-Namo-of-Lomax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

• Blocked – 31 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikola22 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: )

Page: Jovan Rašković (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010260763 by Filipjako (talk) we must respect source of esteemed Croatian historian, everything was explained to you in earlier edit summaries"
2. 12:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010200548 by Filipjako (talk) restoring information from the source, this source is RS, author is historian and the only way to remove this information is RSN or seek consensus on talk page, until then we must respect RS"
3. 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1009970643 by Filipjako (talk) information from RS, this is quality source but if exist some problems seek advice at WP:RSN, until then we must respect information from the source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of the 3RR rule does not exist, which is evident from the report itself, also no warning about violation of this rule was given on mine talk page. The information entered in article is from a quality source and in mine edit summaries was explained what can be done in such cases, we cannot delete information from the source for no reason or with an artificial reason ie WP:JDL because this is literally vandalism. None of this suggestions as a proposal for a mutually agreed solution was used from the opposite side. Considering that there is no violation of the 3RR rule I suggest that this report be rejected as unfounded. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:undue, we do not have to give a minority view any shift. Also, 4RR is not a right, its an upper limit. You can still edit war if you do not reach 4rr if admins think there is a clear sign you are pushing it. I think the page needs locking to prevent further disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree about edit waring and even not violating 3RR can be disruptive.However why is the content “undue” and a “minority view” is there consensus of this being a fact. Also minority views if it is, are still included in articles. We don’t just disregard if the source is reliable and good. Perhaps admin @Peacemaker67: who is familiar with the Balkan topics can chime in? I don’t think this report is worth it. Especially as Mikola22 is dealing with a disruptive most likely puppet account also reported by AB. MIkola22 was just adding back the sourced content this suspect account with 50 edits in total in their history was removing. What is “undue” and wrong here? This report from the quick view looks pointless and equalezes a new disruptive account to Mikola.OyMosby (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well looking at the debate it is one croation author using dodgy source material to repeat a claim. When he was reverted he should have made a case at talk, not edit warred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:I agree 100% that pushing edits is disruptive and not excusable. Both users should have taken it to the talk page. Mikola is not innocent here but I think locking the article fully for a few days would be a good idea as the reverts are still continuing. We even had a puppet account participant who is blocked oddly defending the other reported user by AB. AB was valid to call out the edit waring by these two parties. However a source being Croatian doesn’t make it biased. Whether the source is dodgy I’d have to take a deeper look. Why is it dodgy based on your findings? There have been single Serbian authors used in articles for factoids added. As long as it isn’t given undue attention and we attribute that “According to author blablabla ....” as we usually do in articles when a viewpoint is only from a single source or author. That could be a better alternative. Again a good discussion for the article talk page and Wikipedia RS verification page. Cheers and thanks for taling time to look into all this Slatersteven. OyMosby (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: @Mikola22: has made 3 reverts. Since the 3RR has not been breached by them, then a block would be a mistake. In these Balkan disputes anyone can do 3 reverts within 24 hours: in the past I did that several times, was more than once reported but no admin made a block. Doing 3 rv is not the best thing possible, but is not a crime too. Tbh, I think this is a bad faith report. The filer did not warn or start a discussion with the reported user, but just made the report without having a 3RR breach. The filer in the past filed 3 or 4 SPI reports on Mikola22 that were closed without action because the filer's claims were not correct. The filer in the past made SPI reports or accusations against other editors too without clear evidence. Maybe Mikola22 or someone else should take this to AE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here but 3RR are not made within 24 hours or it is? When editing articles I use examples from past edits. In Andrija Zmajević article exist information that the same is of Serbian origin. This information was defended by the editor Sadko although the sources proving this obviously were not RS(some internet portals with Serbian nationalist authors, and at that time there was no wp:undue problem with this information). Only after a few weeks and the procedure prescribed by wikipedia this information could be removed. In my case and this article, information from RS is removed after a few days although the information is from a strong RS, also the reasons for removing this information was artificial. My revert was in good faith because I thought wikipedia procedure must be followed but also because I thought the other side was some kind of vandal. Mikola22 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And as I said, 3rr is not a right or upper limit. Also see WP:ONUS, its down to those who add to make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: Both editors involved in this rather obvious edit warring should be held accountable. I'm honestly not sure what is taking this long, it's your everyday report, they massively edit-warred and sanctions are in order. As far as I can remember both editors have been the subject of a number of serious and worrying reports. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sadko, one of these reports was your and administrator warn you not to false report your opponents. As far as I can see you have not learned your lesson. Mikola22 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Despite their claim above, Sadko is involved, and their comments should be treated as such. Sadko and Mikola22 have a long history of battlegrounding with each other. Also, 3RR has not been breached here, and whilst that isn't a bright line and sanctions can be imposed regardless, I might be considered an involved admin, as I have collaborated with AB on a couple of Balkans FAs (although we have had serious disagreements) and have interacted extensively with Mikola22 (both positively and negatively), but I recommend sanctions are not imposed on this occasion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • One made 5 reverts breaching 3RR wile The report was underway as Steven said. I don’t believe you can equate it to us exactly the same. Mikola isn’t completely Innocent as I stated above but it’s definitely not equal. OyMosby (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Filipjako reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: Note. I just came here from WP:RFPP. I partially blocked Filipjako for 72 hours. Further action may be desired because of their intransigence, refusal discuss, and mislabelling good faith edits as vandalism as an excuse for said intransigence.)

Page: Jovan Rašković (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) to 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010224101 by Mikola22 (talk)"
   2. 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010259579 by Filipjako (talk)"
   3. 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010224101 by Mikola22 (talk) 2nd warning out of 4 before you will be reported for vandalism. Your nationalist agenda is obvious based on your contribution to this article. As it's a recent edit, you are the one who need to address this in the relevant forums and not vice versa."
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC) to 08:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010069798 by Mikola22 (talk)"
   2. 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010199143 by Filipjako (talk)"
   3. 08:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010069798 by Mikola22 (talk) These allegations were recently added by you. Such claims need multiple independent sources with actual proofs and not allegations, and your source does not fall into any of those categories. Since you recently added it, discuss it on the forum you referred or in the talk page. If not, you will be reported for vandalism."
3. 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) "Unreliable source for an obvious agenda"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Filipjako is in the right here. Other editor should be banned like the nationalist he his. So I have reverted. 8Almond5 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC) LTA, struck GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no excuse for edit warring other than to undo vandalism or BLP violations, biased is not a valid reason. But (As with the above report) I only;y count a 3rr (reverting yourself does not count). I think the page needs locking and setting back to pre-edit war days.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This user was found to be a puppet account also prt of the edit war on the article. They are now banned. See here. OyMosby (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is unreliable. I looked it up, the information originally derives from a Croatian wartime news article (Novi List), where it's just one of many allegations listed about the person in question without referring to a reliable source. If unsourced news articles are to be seen as reliable sources, it would open Pandora's box and cause nationalistic edit warring never seen before, and nobody would be able to do anything about it. Providing proper sources is necessary in cases like these since the allegations are pretty serious. Filipjako (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you report the user, you do not edit war, nor do we get to access RS, if you think it is not an RS you take it wp:rsn, you do not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Then lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days i.e. before the contribution. And how is it edit warring from my perspective when I'm reverting vandalism RECENTLY added? Filipjako (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Because wP:vandalism means something specific, and its not "I do not like it". I do not agree with the change, but it was not vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This user is making personal assumption. If they feel it is not RS or question it they can take ir to the appropriate source verification wiki forum. They are also continuing to revert and edit war during this report.That makes me question the motives and lessons even learned by the user.OyMosby (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what are you actually talking about? Your letsest revert says you got support from another editor who turned out to be a soxk for the article. So far I, and two editors dont see the Vandelism. Who said anything about liking or not liking? Now you're just making unnecessary assumptions. Also now, OyMosby is "questioning motives" while when it's assumed that I've questioned motives, you leave a message on my talk page about not doing so. Come on, maintain decency. I insist that you lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war as you suggested. Filipjako (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You know it fairly laid out. I didn’t assume it what we see. Like Slatersteven who said about “ Because wP:vandalism means something specific, and its not "I do not like it". I do not agree with the change, but it was not vandalism.” I don’t get waht you mean about like/dislike. You are questioning motives and I was not the one that left the message on your page. Slatersteven didZ how about address him instead of deleting his comment on your page. How does that at all look good for you and make your motives appear pure? That was my point. I didn’t say you are a bad person and I criticized Mikiola as well in his report. How about YOU maintain decency and don’t accuse me falsely for this where Slatersteven for saying “ Please read wp:npa, that means you question content, not a users motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)” Odd you do go at him for that. My advice. Stop reverting the edit when literally and uninvolved editor undid the same revert. Instead you two take it to the talk page. Okay? OyMosby (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Filipjako has now reverted 5 times and has now breached 4RR, enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note I just came here from WP:RFPP. I partially blocked Filipjako for 72 hours. Further action may be desired because of their intransigence, refusal to discuss, and mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism as an excuse for said intransigence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention all the false accusations the guy made about me below @Deepfriedokra:. This is nuts. OyMosby (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, OyMosby please don't edit my comments with degrading grammatical errors. Nobody has given you the authority to add comments in my name and on my behalf. Second, when I said "you leave a message on my talk page about not doing so", I did not refer to YOU, i.e., an individual. In the English language, the word "you" is both a singular and a plural, which unfortunately can enable confusion sometimes. Third, please stop questioning motives if I'm not allowed to do the same. This is what I'm talking about when I insist on maintaining decency. Fourth, I can do whatever I want with my own talk page. Again, motives are being questioned. Now, to address what some of you has categorized as a "good faith edit" (I assume that you, "you" as in plural, have limited or no knowledge on the subject in question. Correct me if I'm wrong), would you categorize it as good faith if it was about a Jewish person and claims were made about his father being a judge during the Nazi German regime, who convicted a lot of Jews? It's on the same level, with the difference being that it's about a Serb instead of a Jew and about the Ustashe regime instead of the Nazi German regime. In such a case, sourcing it properly is necessary in order to make it trustworthy. Based on the source, it is not. Not essentially because it's a Croatian wartime source, from a time when propaganda spread like an epidemic from all sides, but because the source is an article from a newspaper that doesn't contain any references. Also, the article already stated that he fled to the town of Kistanje from the Ustashe as a kid (which is not provided with a source but can easily be done as I've found an existing, trustworthy and reliable source), creating a contradiction. The contributor himself talks about "a quality source coming from a historian", but this is not quite true. The historian himself referred to a news article in his paper, meaning that the information was not discovered by the historian himself who made a "hearsay" reference. Also, the contribution itself is bad as the sentence starts with "Father", a countable noun that needs an article or similar at the beginning of the sentence, and the contributor himself is apparently not even fit to even make the simplest contributions on English Wikipedia. Lastly, I insist once again that you ("you" as in plural) lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days like Slatersteven already proposed. I don't know why there's hesitancy over making this decision. I also insist that someone keep an eye on the contributor in question, with regard to the editing history, as there's a lot of engagement on several controversial topics regarding Serbs, e.g., the Jasenovac death camp from WW2, and I would not be surprised if similar contributions have already been made. Filipjako (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? I never touched your comments and I don’t care about your talk page. Edit history proves you wrong. If you don’t like your motives questioned then as Template:Slatersteven told You on YOUR talk page, don’t do it with other people. And edit warring is not good motives as the person who blocked said. You accused someone of having ethnic based motives. Don’t even try mate. That’s three different people Mr. Filipjako.

YOU were replying to me and said “you”. You didn’t say another editor or the editor himself. Is English your primary language? I ask not as an insult but genuinely. In the English language when you are replying or talking to a person and say “you” then they are then the only possible person. So don’t patronize me trying to understand the context of “you” or the how English works. As this mass text is hard to follow and is making claimsmabout me blatantly not true. What grammatical errors did I vandalize in your comments? Funny you have noting to say to Steven huh? As for the source why not simply tgo to RS review and have it vetted there and then be done with it. Instead of accusing me here of things I didn’t do and teaching me English when you aren’t even utilizing grammar correctly ironically. And yes there has been a huge amount of pov pushing on WWII and 90s Balkans articles more so than it used to be. But that will end soon boys. ;) OyMosby (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what you added to my comment on 19:25, 5 March 2021: ''Your "letsest" revert says you got support from another editor who turned out to be a "soxk" for the article. So far I, and two editors "dont" see the "Vandelism"''. No, I was not replying to you (singular) specifically, but to everyone here who is falsely accusing me of being the one on the wrong end of this issue. I only mentioned your behavior without ever addressing this to you personally, and I did so in the middle of my comment. When I said "I'm sorry but what are you actually talking about? Who said anything about liking or not liking?", do you believe I addressed you here as well (since you think my reply was directed towards you specifically)? I did not blame anyone for misinterpretations and recognized that confusion can arise unintentionally. Anyways, I will not entertain this off-topic discussion further and will only keep insisting that you (as in plural if there are multiple authorized users here) to lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days like Slatersteven already proposed, while I agree to proceed with my complaint to the relevant discussion pages. Thanks. Filipjako (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see now, sorry. Please you can obviously see that was not intentional and was meant to be an edit to my reply just before. Your first sentence looked similar to mine and with this 1992 wiki editor layout I got confused. Don’t make assumptions again please of vandalism. And stop with the mocking of grammar. I’m rushing on a tiny smartphone. Not writing a research paper. So no need to quote obvious typos. Also when you reply right under someone, make it clear who you are referring to on what accusation. That makes it clear for all. No confusion and avoid all this extra wasted back and forth analysis. This is typical how you address people In English. I had said from the beginning the article ahould be locked but turns out not I or @Slatersteven: are admins that can do so. Also I was about to undo my revert of you that way the article is stable but Slatersteven beat me to it as now I see it was added content not restored content you were removing. My mistake again as I was rushing yesterday. He pointed out “enough” after your fifth revert, per his comment above that you didn’t reply to about the 5 reverts? My advice again is take it to the talk page of the article. Whether the other guy is right or wrong it is the best way. Trust me I’ve been in your shoes before. I have reverted info I deemed incredibly faulty or weak instead of specifically saying so on the talk page. I get it man. OyMosby (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all good. I thought all comments had to be posted chronologically and had no idea that replies are posted under the comment of the user you're replying to, which is why I commented after you. My bad, this is my first experience with an issue like this one. I have fully retreated from the initial course, I accept the consequences handed to me and I will take the issue to the relevant forums going forward. I'm also sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, it was never my intention to breach policies which is once again due to my inexperience. Filipjako (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: Both editors involved in this rather obvious edit warring should be held accountable. I'm honestly not sure what is taking this long, it's your everyday report, they massively edit-warred and sanctions are in order. As far as I can remember both editors have been the subject of a number of serious and worrying reports. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:79.16.237.161 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: )

Page: OTB Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.16.237.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) to 14:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010450606 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
   2. 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010450275 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
3. 14:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010449986 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC) to 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 14:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010449597 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
   2. 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC) to 14:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Key milestones */"
   2. 14:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Key milestones */"
   3. 14:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
2. 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
3. 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on OTB Group."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP keeps removing maintenance templates from the page without solving the issues indicated, with absolutely no explanation in the edit summary, despite being reverted and warned each time. Has violated 3RR. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Marcisoldies12 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

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

User being reported: Marcisoldies12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Recharged everything back to normal it was changed"
5. 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC) ""
7. 08:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on DJ Fresh (American DJ)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* MOS */ new section"
2. 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* MOS */"
3. 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "/* MOS */"

Comments:

There's a ton more but they don't seem to be willing to engage anyone. CUPIDICAE💕 19:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]
9. [43]
10. [44]
11. [45]
12. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

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

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) 04:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxxhrxxx reported by User:Austronesier (Result: blocked one week. Please note name change to User:Eiskrahablo) User:MrCatttt is also blocked 1 week.

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 1010609105 by MrCattttt (talk) Reverting several vandalism attempts. This matter already discussed on the talk page by other users. Please kindly refers to citation sources before making any disruptive edits. Kebaya in Indonesia (especially Java) predates the Kebaya development in Malay Paninsula (present day part of Malaysia), and it is adapted the Kebaya of Javanese. It is crystal clear stated on the article."
2. 10:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 1010606423 by MrCattttt (talk)"
3. 10:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 1010605707 by MrCattttt (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC) to 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 1010601136 by Davidelit (talk)"
   2. 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Added indigenous script."
5. 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010599837 by MrCattttt (talk) Rescuing information and reverted some deleted citation sources from several vandalism attempts. Before making any disruptive edits, please read the whole citation sources. Kebaya in Java predates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring before. The other warring party is MrCattttt, who had been reported for edit warring in Feb 2021. Austronesier (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I only preserved the credibility of the Kebaya article, any kind of vandalism attempts should be reverted back, before making any disruptive edits any Wikipedia users should at least read the citation sources. If the citation sources didn't appeared to be match with the factual paragraph on the article then it should be reverted back or expanded as what it should. My intention was nothing but to preserved the the good faith to make Wikipedia as a reliable free-encyclopedia source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxhrxxx (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xxxhrxxx: You have been blocked before for edit warring, but even after that, you have never, not even once, enganged in a article talk page discussion. You only edits in article talk space are WikiProject template edits. MrCattttt acts in good faith, but exhibits the same edit warring behavior including 3RR-violations in the current case; the main difference is, they are at least willing to discuss. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As what I mentioned before, this matter already discussed in the Kebaya talk page by the other users, and it is clear that several sources stated Kebaya in Indonesia (esp. Java) predates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula (present-day part of Malaysia). Should any further discussion need to be done if the discussion was already there? I guess it just the matter of literacy skills. Assuming good faith over vandalism acts is heavily misleading and betrayed the Wikipedia policies and guides.

• The editor removed five well-published resources in the lead section. No reason was given. The editor called my and other editor reverts as “vandalism”MrCattttt (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your prior vandalism acts [49][50] appeared to lead the prior edit war with Gunkarta and you keep reverting the article as "what you believe" without any kind of good intention to even read the citation sources (as the main reason why the article should preserved as in original version). Before making any further disruptive edits, make sure you read the whole citation sources and the factual chronicle of the case. Xxxhrxxx (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You clearly removed five well-published resources to push your POV with no consideration that the matter has been discussed in the Talk:Kebaya. Tell me, how is removing a bunch of well-published resources is not a vandalism? MrCattttt (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Renamer note: I saw before I went to bed a global rename request from Xxxhrxxx. But I saw they were blocked on a different language wiki. Glad I did not honor the request. This matter needs to be settled first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: The explanation for the block in the Indonesian WP roughly translates as: "Username violation + [addition of] promotional content, OR, removal of talk page entries [lit. "evidence"], no intention for behavioral improvement". –Austronesier (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Saw that. @Xxxhrxxx: I also saw what looked like a 72 hour block for edit warring. I am inclined to block due to WP:tendentious editing WP:NPA\ and personal attacks. You really need to calm yourself and behave in a more collegial manner. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the thing, let me explain the issue regarding to the block in Indonesian Wikipedia. So my username was accused not following the username guidelines of Wikipedia. The warning was sent to my talk page including the steps of how to get rid of it, which request to rename the username is the best possible way. And then later I followed the step and that's why I requested for rename my username. After I followed the steps, I thought it was done and I have to wait for my new username so that's why later I removed the talk sessiom on my talk page. But somehow, the user that sent me the warning in my talk page didn't seem to know that I already follow the steps and he thought I removed the talk session because I didn't want to follow the instruction. That's why he then blocked me with the summary narratives of "9. Using the prohibited username: + promotion original researches, removing the talk session evidence in the talk page, no good intention."  ← and here's the original translation in my talk page, it has nothing to do with any kind of behavioural improvement or anything. And yeah, I admit that I was attempted the personal attacks in previous months ago, but I was changed and never shows any kind of personal attacks anymore. I feel disappointed that this old narrative keep lingering while I did not perform this anymore. I only preserved the credibility of articles with giving my contribution and revert any kind of vandalism on Wikipedia, there is no further intention other than that. Xxxhrxxx (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xxxhrxxx: Here's the thing. You keep trying to justify edit warring.Please affirm you will stop reverting, stop trying to justify reverting, and explain what to do instead . On a separate matter, I'll honor the user name change. (You can apply for unblock there. I have no buttons there.) Those who have watched your current user name will see the new user name. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: May I know or can you give me some information on how to prevent or get rid of any kind of vandalism acts made by other Wikipedia users without violating the reverts rules? because I have no idea how to make the article preserved in stable version without reverted it back. I never justify any kind of edit warring, and that was never been my intention, I always trying to be thoughtful and never reverting any kind of information that proven correct after the verification, and if I find that the information is a blatant misleading, all I did was just reverted it back to the stable version so the vandalist output could disappeared because I simply did not know the alternative ways to prevent the vandalism attempts. By the way, thank you for your consideration and understanding, all I did here on Wikipedia was nothing but to keep Wikipedia as the credible online free-encyclopedia for people all around the world. It just somehow disappoint me that some user really trying so hard to change the credible information on some article, and some user even support these kind of vandalism acts. Anyways, this is not a personal attack against anyone, it just to shows about how I felt and to show what was my exact intention. Eiskrahablo (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop calling good faith edits you disagree with vandalism. Discuss calmly and without being nasty to people content and sourcing on the talk page. If an impasse is reached seek dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion. open a request for comment on the article talk page and post notices on the talk pages of any Wikiproject the article is a part of. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Eiskrahablo has been blocked for edit warring, resorted to socking to continue an edit war, fails to recognize WP:Not vandalism and WP:No personal attacks, fails to understand that all editors may have different viewpoints and that WP is built on consensus, and never engages in content discussions in talk pages, but only on user talk pages and noticeboards once the milked is spilled and they get templated or reported. If they are not blocked now, I suggest at least strict probation measures (1RR, no personal attacks including calling other editors good faith efforts "vandalism") and a indefinite topic ban if further violations occur. –Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Not helping. I already understand that all editors might have different pov and that Wikipedia is built on consensus. And as in the Kebaya case, the matter regarding to the origin disputes already discussed in talk page, and it is crystal clear stated in credible citation sources that Kebaya in Java preadates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula and the Portuguese colonialism in Malay Archipelago. And based on that discussion, the same exact matter should not be performed anymore. Your block and restriction request over my Wikipedia user account somehow could possibly violates the policy in Wikipedia, because it is my right to combat any kind of disruptive edits (including vandalism). — Eiskrahablo (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you have no uninhibited "right to combat any kind of disruptive edits (including vandalism)", especially with your overly broad and thus erroneous understanding of "vandalism". We have noticeboards and community-appointed admins to prevent and counteract disruptive editing. Both you and MrCattttt have not engaged in vandalism, but have made disagreeing good faith edits, and until the first revert, there was no "disruptive editing"; disruptive editing started with the second revert and the warring behavior. FWIW, WP:ECP is totally off-topic here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: What about User:MrCattttt? They have just made their sixth revert in Kebaya within 24 hrs and have earlier referred twice to their "opponents" edits as "clear act of vandalism" too. In spite of the more agreeable communcation style of MrCattttt, they were one of the two in today's edit tango. –Austronesier (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Blocked as well. If either restarts this WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE behavior, please do report at ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikijahnn reported by User:Impru20 (Result: )

Page: Together for Catalonia (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikijahnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
2. 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
3. 12:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
4. 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
5. 13:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "The party Junts is not considered populist. Can you stop put it?"
6. 00:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Very heavy editors who want to touch the ..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link1 link2

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

Comments:
Had doubts on whether to bring this to WP:AIV outright. Not really a content dispute that can be discussed, since what the user is doing is to keep unilaterally removing sourced content (without even caring to remove or dispute the sources), even resorting to what seems to be an attempt of a personal attack on both Vif12vf and myself after several warning notices were put on their talk page. User is seemingly surreptitiously awaiting to conduct their edits just outside the WP:3RR timespan. Also note that this article is the only one this editor seems to be caring about in the last couple months. Looks like a WP:SPA case here. Impru20^talk 12:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:RandoBanks reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Criticism of current conceptions */ what's the page number then? hmmm? Wikipedia's policy on copyright doesn't mean you are supposed to put shit like this in Wikipedia's voice. read WP:WIKIVOICE. and what you mean is WP:Plagiarism anyway."
2. 10:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010607684 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) take it to the discussion page. you don't even cite the page. you use POV words. not encyclopedic."
3. 10:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010602102 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) it is pov. it's just a bunch of yapping from you in an unencyclopedic tone. you don't even stick to what the source says."
4. 09:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010586425 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) pov."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Psychopathy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user (account created only hours ago), appears to have more in-depth knowledge of wikipedia than one would expect for a newly registered user, I suspect sock and SPA. But regardless, they made 4 reverts at Psychopathy and are using inappropriate edit summaries in article space and at AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the WP:Edit warring policy. I didn't revert the anon four times. I reverted the anon three times, but now I know that I shouldn't have reverted that many times. Even so, after reverting the anon three times, I asked the anon to make their argument on the article's discussion page. I compromised with the anon and a brief discussion did take place there. This report was filed hours later after the reverting had stopped, and appears to be retaliation for me move voting "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayphobia. See how it's only about me and not the anon? Polyamorph says I appear "to have more in-depth knowledge of wikipedia than one would expect for a newly registered user, I suspect sock." I also read WP:Sock. I'm not a sock. What I know about Wikipedia's rules and regulations is what I read users say in the edit histories and at pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayphobia. When a page like WP:NEO is used as something for us to abide by, I'm going to read it. That's how I learn about this place, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

And someone else has also reverted the anon.[51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs)

Note I placed 3RR warning on IP users talk page. This is not retaliation - you are a brand new user, leaving inappropriate edit summaries, engaging in an edit war, seemingly knowledgeable of wikipedia policy/guidelines after only a handful of edits. It is not a good start and somewhat suspicious. Quack. Polyamorph (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good for you that you placed a warning on the anon's talk page (I saw that too) while focusing exclusively on me here at this report page. You are being very rude while Cullen328 left a polite message on my talk page. You say I'm a brand new user, but you also say I'm a sock. I wonder how you think new users learn how to edit here. When they have been editing as an anon first, like the anon I reverted, and then they register for an account, do you just say "sock" and "quack" to them too? The anon knows about WP:Copyright, but used the wrong rationale for it. Is the anon a sock too? You say this isn't retaliation, but you filed this report HOURS AFTER THE WARRING HAD STOPPED! If further disruption was a risk, it would mean that I would have reverted again and wouldn't have been willing to discuss. You are trying to get me blocked for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe read back some of your own edit summaries if you want to start accusing us of being rude towards you. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jabbi reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Arbitration Enforcement discretionary sanction applied)

Page: Viktor Lukashenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010658512 by Praxidicae (talk) - content removed without reason"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC) to 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010653701 by Praxidicae (talk) - supplanted with a clear source"
   2. 16:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "yet another source"
   3. 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "moved sections"
3. 16:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1010649040 by Praxidicae (talk) easily supported by sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
2. 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
4. 16:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
5. 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* BLP violations and weight */ new section"
2. 16:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "/* BLP violations and weight */"

Comments:

I have tried to explain, at length, our BLP policy (and WP:UNDUE) to this user and it continues to be ignored, see the revision deleted comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman), which were then more or less inserted into the Lukashenko article as an alternative despite the lack of appropriate sourcing. They've also been informed of 3rr and BLP ds and have chosen to ignore it in favor of WP:RGW. CUPIDICAE💕 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank Praxidicae for bringing this up here rather persisting in his deletions as they were unfounded. If I might just make a couple of points.

• I created the article about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) after I inserted the disputed content into the article about Viktor Lukashenko.
• The article about Zaytsev was a contested debate that rather narrowly resulted in a deletion in my opinion.
• The facts stated about Viktor Lukashenko and Zaytsev are not controversial and clearly supported by sources cited. These are Tut.by, [Ej.by] and an independent Lithuanian journalism venture. Together these sources are sufficient to support the facts presented in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.
• I will also note that Praxidicae removed the content first without starting any sort of notice or discussion.
• Lastly, I acknowledged that it shouldn't be in the section Accusations and EU sanctions and moved it from there which meant that his first stated reason for removing the material was unfounded.

Thanks, --Jabbi (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that Zaytsev was involved in something untoward, including on Lukashenko's article are unsupported by sources. None of them draw the same conclusions that you do, because you're using WP:SYNTH to get there. Of course he knew Lukashenko, he was his aide. This is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the article for the same reason it wouldn't belong in his article if he once met Britney Spears. But your continued BLP violations without discussing are the real problem here and your refusal to acknowledge policy and actually discuss changes on the talk page is highly disruptive and needs to stop. But as we speak, the vios are still there. CUPIDICAE💕 17:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, as I noted here and you ignored, I will repeat: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. from WP:BLP. It's a policy. I explained clearly in my edit summary and again with an explanation of why you weren't supposed to revert it, which you are aware of. CUPIDICAE💕 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:, you seem to have mixed together the discussion about Zaytsev and Lukashenko. The content you removed without discussion on the page of Lukashenko was sourced and I added more sources. You did not start a discussion there. You have not explained what the problem is with those sources and therefore no cause to remove them. Belarus is a patronage state, it is very relevant to document notable business men and their verifiable connections to the Lukashenka family. --Jabbi (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's directly related because you said you were going to add the material from the article at AFD to Lukashenko when you were informed repeatedly that you were falling afoul of WP:BLP, so instead added WP:UNDUE material about another living person to Lukashenko's article that was contentious and poorly sourced in an attempt to again WP:RGW. CUPIDICAE💕 17:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying that Zaytsev is connected to Viktor has some sourcing behind it so no BLP violation there. The discussion about whether or not it belongs in Viktor's article can be had on the article talk page. However, until we have RS saying Zaytsev or Viktor have been acting corruptly with each other, we should not be saying it nor implying it in our articles and even saying it in discussion is troubling. Doing so is a BLP violation and needs to stop Jabbi. Please confirm that you will stop trying to do this, until (if) reliable sourcing is available to support it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not and have not stated there is anything illegal or corrupt happening with regards to the discussed entities. I have talked about Zaytsev potentially being a politically exposed person (or a "wallet"), this does not imply anything illegal. @Praxidicae:, I have not yet added material from the disputed Zaytsev article to the Lukashenko article. You have the order of events wrong. Your accusations here are inaccurate. Please do proper research before acting like this. --Jabbi (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We're well into WP:IDHT. I'm done here. Admins can do whatever they want, I don't care anymore. CUPIDICAE💕 17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page. Nick (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: that's a bit abrupt. I would have expected a bit more time to respond to that. I hadn't forgotten. I'll do so. --Jabbi (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have blocked Jabbi from editing BLPs under the provisions of the Arbitration Enforcement Discretionary Sanctions (AE/DS). I will take no further action in relation to this specific edit warring report. Nick (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:146.198.108.170 reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: )

Page: United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.198.108.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]

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

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

Comments:

Last stable version of the lead is here. Attempts to rephrase and restructure the lead paragraph in various ways to address what 146.198.108.170 says are their concerns have been met with reversions to the same wording. Cambial foliage❧ 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The text they're insisting on, "and to restrict the way [the DAs] can operate in practice" is inaccurate and misleading, this precise wording they've admitted isn't justified on the talk page. They call repeatedly reverting back to their preferred text as "stable", it's more a case of them grinding down anyone who attempts to improve the article. They've patrolled this article and reverted to this text 24/7 for months, in spite of all attempts to find an alternative; using wikipedia policy inappropriately with disingenuous arguments to waste as much time as possible of any editor who makes the mistake of attempting to make the article inform the audience in an accurate manner. I've invited them to come up with alternative text which doesn't contain the misleading wording on the talk page, I have yet to see any efforts to resolve the matter which aren't further examples of a disturbing pattern of behaviour.

Result of previous edit warring on this article, they managed to troll this particular editor into an effective rage quit.[60]

Notice how the only time they haven't immediately reverted back to their preferred text was when it looked like this might go against them. As soon as the case was archived they're back for more edit warring, if that's what's needed to keep the introduction misleading: [[61]]

This is just today, if anyone cares to look through the history of this editor, it wouldn't surprise me to find way more than 100 examples for this very specific ambiguous text; many of them contradict the policies they use as excuses to keep the article starting on a misleading premise.

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]
6. [67]

My experience of this editor is just on this article, my efforts are only the result of investigating other potential restrictions on the devolved administrations having read the article and assumed there must be, given the wording this editor insists upon; it transpires there aren't any and my focus is on correcting this inaccuracy. However, today's intervention has also led me to find examples egregious enough for a ban [[68]], I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. 146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The text IP has sought to remove has has been reverted back to by at least six different editors and had become stable again subsequent to moderation.[69][70][71][72][73][74] Cambial foliage❧ 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a look at opinions expressed by some of those editors who've attempted to mediate this madness in good faith, on Cambial Yellowing's approach to this article:

I appreciate that you are heavily invested in this article but you risk drifting into WP:OWN territory. I also appreciate there is a problem with {{Round in circles}} and that it is wearing to have to keep rehearsing the same arguments. Even so, it would be wise to take at least a few hours between edits. [IP later known as PlainAndSimpleTailor] is engaging properly now, please give her some space in which to move forward because barracking just causes her to dig in, as it would anybody. John Maynard Friedman 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC) [75]

And again, I am not talking about the entirety of the “lead”, I am talking about the introductory paragraph. If I was talking about the entirety of the lead, I wouldn’t have said “paragraph” after the word “lead”. I’ve also been open to adding opposing views and have been subjective as possible. Stop twisting my words and preventing consensus on this article by quoting rules- as if you own the article. DrJosephCowan 00:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC) [76]

First you're not in charge, please start to realise you aren't superior to anyone, and don't own this article. It should also be obvious that we can't use a source verbatim without violating copyright. So I would suggest you stop being pedantic and focusing on semantics and start see if you can contribute anything useful PlainAndSimpleTailor 13:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC) [77]

Separately, I see Cambial Yellowing's pattern of editing articles other than the UK Internal Market Act only when admins might be paying attention to their behaviour is hitting the bingo card.