Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:42, 16 April 2021

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Maudslay II reported by User:Free1Soul (Result: )

Page: Zrarieh massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maudslay II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (this a 1RR violation, page has edit notice)

1. (also personal attack), additional revert to
3. , this is 10 hours after revert 2 above, so this breaks 1rr again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Alerted ARBPIA. Then warned of breaking 1RR and personal attacks on this page-

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Page is under WP:ARBPIA 1RR. Maudslay II has been alerted and warned of 1rr, but still did the last revert afterwarrs, breaking 1rr.

Maudslay II is adding categories and content not supported by Western sources, who call this a raid and say that the target were Amal militant fighters after a large car bomb the day before.

Maudslay has also been moving warring:

Also an IP, that previously edit warred for Maudslay as pointed in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Maudslay II removed the Afd notice disruptively: .

Maudslay is warring against consensus.Free1Soul (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think #1 and #2 were more than 24 hours apart. The third edit was a revert of a confirmed sockpuppet, so allowable.

I would encourage admins to review the edit history of the filing editor, who is only just over the 500-edit ARBPIA requirement but the vast majority of their edits were a repeat of a single automated edit, changing “an” to “a” across a few hundred articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:86.143.34.185 and User: 2804:14c:7f81:8373:58a4:8d63:c61f:f7db reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: Semi)

Page: Hernanes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.143.34.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2804:14c:7f81:8373:58a4:8d63:c61f:f7db (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they are used recently

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1015155046

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1017100695 (by 86.175.90.53, who is presumably the one now using the 86.143.34.185 address)
2. Special:Diff/1017566439 (by 2804:14c:7f81:8373:a4bc:bf3c:a3c5:fef6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1017475780

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1017613318

Comments:Different IP addresses have been used by two people to repeatedly changing a very small part of the article from one state to another then back to the original state. Former IP address wants the FC in "São Paulo" to be hidden from view, the latter wants it to be displayed in view. This edit warring has been going on for at least two years and may have been reported on this noticeboard in the past.
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: I have semiprotected the Hernanes article indef due to IP edit warring going back to 2015. See also

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Josepolivares/Archive and
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AH999/Archive

An example of he 'FC' revert by Josepolivares can be seen in this edit of 23 November 2017 where he unpipes ] just as in the present report. The recent trouble is mostly from IPs and it's unclear if any registered accounts are making similar edits. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That has gone on longer than I thought it was. I have now noticed a bit more than the ones earlier than 2019. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Page: 2021 Northern Ireland riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheeFactChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restriction per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. The editor replied to the 1RR notification at 22:37, prior to making the second revert at 22:40. FDW777 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. In addition to the warring, these changes go against WP:DERRY. The sanctions of WP:TROUBLES are available if User:TheeFactChecker does not get the message. The editor was notified of the WP:AC/DS prior to their last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dokabutts6 reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Warned)

Page: Darren Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dokabutts6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reversion after warning, see below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous warning by Wugapodes

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

Comments:
Another reversion after a warning about a week ago. No response on talk page or user talk page. The reversions keep adding visible referencing errors to the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Dokabutts6 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Darren Kelly unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, EdJohnston. But are you sure that's the right resolution? You didn't leave a warning at User:Doktabutts6 talk page -- the warning there is from the previous incident. As you can see, that report was resolved with the comment that a warning would be left, and if the behaviour continued, the result would be a block. Why did you decide to warn this user instead of blocking them? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainly because this report was stale (8 days since their last revert). Now warned the user on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

So edit warring is acceptable, as long as it's not promptly detected and reported? Didn't know that, thanks! -- 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this noticeboard, "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." (bolding added). The editor is clearly not behaving well, but some of their edit summaries suggest BLP concerns: "inaccurate referencing and slandering". No idea if his concerns are valid; he seems to be referring to whether or not he was fired from various teams. At least a minimal talk page discussion may be warranted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:General electric p30ch reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:User registration time/General electric p30ch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: General electric p30ch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 10:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 06:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC) to 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC) on User talk:General electric p30ch

Comments:

User has been repeatedly warned by multiple editors to not remove the TfD tag from the template they created. They are now also doing the same at P.A. Problems (episode) Laplorfill (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Removing TfD and AfD tags from pages, after being warned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Newtown2302028 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)

Page: University of Melbourne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Newtown2302028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017732844 by Greyjoy (talk) Inappropriate and incorrect challenge as valid citation has been provided as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in relation to the public university."
2. 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017732154 by Greyjoy (talk) Valid citation provided as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The content should be retained until the disputer takes it to the talk page and a consensus is made there."
3. 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017731290 by Escape Orbit (talk) Not required as it is in reference to statements by a public university appointee whose public appointed role has not yet been renounced by either themselves or the public university, addressing the initial reason for reversion."
4. 09:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017729877 by Escape Orbit (talk) It is in relation to an appointed titled public academic representative of the university."
5. 09:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Valid source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources now provided."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on University of Melbourne."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC) on Talk:University of Melbourne "/* Controversy */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Citobun reported by User:86.9.227.81 (Result: No action)

Page: Tsuen Wan Public Ho Chuen Yiu Memorial College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Citobun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Envysan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FungTzeLong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:07, 13 April 2021‎ "Repair"
2. 18:03, 23 March 2021‎ "It is notable"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I report Citobun as he is the one who gave me a warning without carrying out the edit himself, Envysan and FungTzeLong was the ones who made the reverts.

I made the decision to report here rather than engage in an edit war as I was short of going into my 3rd revert.

I removed this entry as it was too off-topic for an article about a school and it was totally unnecessary. That edit was about the subject who is not Misplaced Pages notable; was only known for a single event and most of us don't even know the guy's name at all and yet it goes off topic about the events of him after and not the school. When I made the removal, I made this clear in my edit summary but instead, it got reverted and I got a warning, which is why I came here. They did not have a real reason why other than gave me an automated message calling it 'disruptive editing'.

Envysan made the first revert, FungTzeLong made the 2nd and then Citobun gave me a warning out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.227.81 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The filing IP did not notify the three reported users: User:Citobun, User:Envysan and User:FungTzeLong. I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston. I would like to point out that IP is not reporting me for edit warring, but for placing a warning template on his talk page. The IP appears to be the one edit warring, repeatedly blanking content which is cited to several reliable sources including Hong Kong Economic Journal, South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Free Press, and Radio Television Hong Kong. The blanked content is directly relevant to the school. Citobun (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The IP editor has listed a total of two reverts that happened in different months. This is not sufficient. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR. If there is a dispute on whether Tsang Chi-kin should be mentioned in the article I recommend that those interested open up a thread on the article talk before making any more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Erasmus Sydney reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Advice)

Page: Andrew Hastie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: John Anderson (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erasmus Sydney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Andrew Hastie

• John Anderson (Australian politician)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
This is not intended to be reported as a violation of 3RR, but I think guidance is needed for this editor who appears insistent on edit warring. These two articles are biographies of living people which have been subjected to some organised attempts at inserting promotional material about the subjects. These articles are about Australian politicians which have been on my watchlist for some time and I have edited them long before these particular instances. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement of admins - and thank them for their time. As of a week ago, both these articles had a lot of problems. In the case of the John Anderson article, lots of missing citations for one thing. But as you might see on the talk page, dozens of other problems besides. I find it surprising that any genuinely interested editor could be content with that. In the case of the Andrew Hastie article, big gaps of information, particularly with regards wartime service. So, I've begun bringing that information in. I would have appreciated some pointers on any given paragraph that might be improved or tidied up. But instead I can see that several thousand bytes of content I put together was simply deleted with a dozen words given as a justification. I saw no attempt to refine or improve or even discuss. I experience this unilateral, un-collaborative and non-constructive. Thanks for your consideration.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No violation of the edit warring policy, but the edits of User:Erasmus Sydney do raise some concerns. The issue is more clear at Andrew Hastie where there was intense discussion in the fall of 2020 about pruning the article. Though I didn't carefully examine what Erasmus is re-adding in April 2021, it seems likely that they will be revisiting many of the issues that were dealt with at length on the talk page in the fall of 2020. (One of Erasmus's reverts listed above adds 25,000 bytes to the article). Simply restoring a lot of material that was removed in fall 2020 doesn't seem to be a good idea. A sincere desire to improve the article doesn't remove the requirement to get consensus. If Erasmus believes that the fall 2020 removals were unwise, they need to get support on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston: thank you for your direction. I do believe the consensus in 2020 shows support for those changes - such as the 25,000 byte revert. But I will follow your counsel, return to discussion on the talk page, and see if there is consensus for that now.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Osamaorf reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: )

Page: Tatar confederation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osamaorf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 31.167.235.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
In the article Tatar confederation, Osamaorf (talk · contribs) add their own judgments (WP:OR) and remove sources and references to major historians Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, Peter Benjamin Golden, Vasily Bartold and other, who, in the opponent's opinion, 'resource that is not reliable or directly related to Kashgari's writing and can only be classified as a conspiracy theory aimed to distort the original understandıng of the context'. Diff. Diff. The user uses anonymous, so I ask you to protect the article and take action against Osamaorf (talk · contribs).--KoizumiBS (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:125.26.13.234 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: blocked, 3 days)

Page: Andrew Garfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 125.26.13.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 12:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 12:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC) to 11:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 11:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 11:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) to 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 11:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
9. 11:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistently changing DOB despite being reverted by a number of other editors. 4im warning issued and ignored. Tommi1986 12:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Kralizec! (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:DevilInTheRadio reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

Page: Julius Evola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "It is not watering down nor whitewashing since it was not what Evola was known for, nor was it his occupation. Discuss it where actually appropriate."
2. 17:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017791404 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC) to 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Placed in proper context."
4. 11:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Julius Evola."
2. 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "/* April 2021 */ WP:NONAZIS"
3. 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "/* April 2021 */ WP:ANI notice"
4. 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Julius Evola."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "whitewashing"
2. 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ WP:CONSENSUS"
3. 17:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ vilolating consensus"
4. 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ WP:ANI"

Comments:

Also opened a topic at WP:ANI, but other editors have not yet reacted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. The relative importance of Julius Evola's acknowledged antisemitism needs to be decided by the consensus of editors, not by revert warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Osmand Charpentier reported by User:Tercer (Result: Indef)

Page: Manning formula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osmand Charpentier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I haven't tried to resolve this in the talk page, because after warning the user on his talk page he accused me of being a sock and compared himself to Christopher Columbus. Tercer (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The user has been spamming the Columbus comparison across multiple pages . In fact, the entirety of his editing history appears to be inserting links to his own non-peer-reviewed writings and getting angry at people who remove them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to be solely interested in pushing their self-published work. I would recommend an indef NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – The user seems to be here on Misplaced Pages only to promote their own self-published work. In their replies to others, they accuse them of sockpuppetry and vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 reported by User:Rantemario (Result: No violation)

Page: Name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I said discuss first, but they ignored and violated the 3RR rule. Rantemario (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey genius, the first edit there was my initial edit, not a revert. The third edit is modifying my own edit, not a revert. This is not a 3RR violation and I'm closing your nonsense. Maybe realize that the original image is not legible so it does not illustrate the topic? Reywas92 03:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No violation – But please avoid personalizing disputes ('hey genius', 'nonsense', etc). EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Alex Mili reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: first bold edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The following are not exactly identical, but all the same theme in the same block of text:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, DS, 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user appears to be new, but two warnings have been received and this has gone on for a week now. CMD (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, following another attempt to restore the disputed content this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:184.145.22.163 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: )

Page: Barbara Pit massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 184.145.22.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017893277 by SunDawn (talk)"
2. 05:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 03:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017876931 by Doremo (talk)"
4. 02:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017873474 by SunDawn (talk)"
5. 01:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1017870087 by SunDawn (talk)"
6. 01:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Barbara Pit massacre."
2. 05:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Barbara Pit massacre (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */"

Comments:

User keep pushing his POV that the people killed in Barbara Pit massacre are fascist sympathizers. User is not responding on his talk page, and also on talk page of the article. SunDawn (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Derwishi10 reported by User:FMSky (Result: )

Page: Maude Eburne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Derwishi10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 18:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 17:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC) to 16:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 16:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Barbara Luddy."
2. 18:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
3. 18:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Maude Eburne."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

same behaviour on Barbara Luddy, and sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Weeely123 FMSky (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No vio on Maude Eburne. However, they have violated on Barbara Luddy and socked. SPI created. Firestar464 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok but why "no violation", I mean he/she was obviously edit warring on that article? FMSky (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

3RR, afaik. Edit warring is disruptive anyway, however. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shirshore reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: Blocked)

Page: Erigavo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Las Anod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Sool, Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Isaaq Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Dhahar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Las Khorey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Buuhoodle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Badhan, Sanaag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Burao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Hargeisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Berbera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Maroodi Jeex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Toon, Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Borama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Zeila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Awdal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Togdheer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This person has been on a campaign of unconstructive and disruptive drive-by edits affecting Somaliland-related articles. All he has done is promote a Somalian ultranationalist POV by replacing mentions of Somaliland with Somalia, in violation of a long-standing consensus. Shirshore has in addition to that, without reason, unilaterally blanked the Isaaq Sultanate page as shown here . I have tried to reason with the person as shown here however to no avail.

Shirshore has also repeatedly added unsourced original research to the Badhan article as shown and when informed that it was indeed original research he kept reverting the edits of other editors to restore his original research as shown here and here .

Overall, it is clear that this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and is constantly breaking WP:NPOV.

Dabaqabad (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dylan smith1234 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Protected)

Page: Franco-Thai War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dylan smith1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notification on user's talk page:

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. I'm basically a non-involved party. Once this user made their 3rd revert, it appeared none of the parties would engage in discussion, so I reverted to QUO and started a thread on the article talk page, pinging each party and encouraging them to discuss, as opposed to continued edit warring and disruption. This user then reverted for a fourth time, and mentioned the talk page in their edit summary, indicating they had no intention to discuss and every intention to continue edit warring (they still have not posted to the talk page as of this report). - wolf 21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – 5 days by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Hungryhippo112 reported by User:karagory (Result: )

Page: Amy_Chua
User being reported: Hungryhippo112 talk:Hungryhippo112

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ]
2. ]
3. ]
4. ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not responded on Talk:Amy_Chua

Comments:

Editor Hungryhippo112 is using a non Reliable Source for contentious material about living persons; editor is also not responding to repeated requests for consensus discussion on Talk Page. Karagory (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hungryhippo112 here. Sorry, Kargory, about not responding earlier. I'm new to Misplaced Pages and I only saw one notification about this content just now. I don't think I'm using "contentious material" and I can provide the links again for consideration. The sources I've cited include but are not limited to Yale Daily News and Above the Law (website). I've also cited an open letter published by Amy Chua herself which you can find by clicking here. However, I'm open to discussing these sources should there be any misunderstanding. I am also open to providing other sources such as one by the New York Post which you can find by clicking here. I hope we can discuss this further to reach a consensus. Thank you. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hungryhippo112

We will work it out on the talk page. Karagory (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Pinchme123 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Chad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pinchme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "top: the territory was colonised, but here's a compromise to satisfy the need to reference the military operations"
2. "Undid revision 1017507480 by Tbhotch (talk) "conquer" does not mean "colonize. Both are key."
3. "Undid revision 1017508031 by Tbhotch (talk) learn to read the dictionary. Nowhere on the linked definition does the word "colonise" or "colonize" appear)"
4. "per extended discussion on chat, objection is only to replacement of "conquered" not to additional information added by "colonised")"
5. "top: enough of this. Content experts call Chad colonised, it was colonised. Added multiple high quality WP:RS to put an end to this"
6. "improperly explained removal of well-sourced material. Supposed reasoning on Talk is wholly inadequate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Above edits vary slightly but cover the same issue. I have pointed to WP:DR twice on the talkpage, but that seems to have gone ignored in favour of continuous reinsertion. Given I was just given a final warning by Pinchme123 simultaneously with their making of the most recent revert, I thought best to bring here so both sets of behaviour can be evaluated. CMD (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note, edits do not merely vary slightly, but show key differences and are spread out over several days. First, I replaced a word with another on April 13 early morning, the first in the list. This was not a revert, but new content. When that was challenged by two separate editors, I turned to the talk page with RS to support and to begin a discussion. At this point I had reverted twice, so I stopped. CMD showed a lack of understanding regarding the concept at hand: colonization. After an extended discussion over nearly 3 days, during which their reasoning for opposing changed repeatedly, and after CMD stated they opposed replacing the one word with another, I changed the article again the middle of April 15th to include both words, the fourth link in the list. This again was new content. When this was immediately reverted, I reincluded the second word and added multiple peer-reviewed academic sources to support and reinstated this substantively different change after CMD again reverted. CMD continues to change their reasoning for opposing. I've tried hard to not war; I've made changes to the proposed content many of the linked times, including academic citations. I have since listed this disagreement at Third Opinion for a neutral party to chime in and will not be editing any WP articles until someone else does just that. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: an editor has provided their third party assessment, so I have self-reverted and will no longer be discussing this page's content. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Pinchme123 reverted their last change and indicates they will not be continuing the war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring