Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Saucysalsa30 reported by User:Qahramani44 (Result: Page protected)

Pages: Iraqi invasion of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]
[2]
[3]

Lengthy report. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts: diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 diff1 diff2 diff3 diff1 diff2 diff3 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4] (he actually deleted it afterwards here [5] calling me a "harasser" and "stalker") Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] -- Talk:Iraqi invasion of Iran My attempt to explain the sources for this statement were immediately met with personal attacks and baseless accusations, so there was little room for discussion here. [7] -- Talk:Ba'athism I didn't participate much in this particular discussion, as I felt there wasn't much to add beyond supporting User:TheTimesAreAChanging's points. Again as you can see the entire "debate" is full of WP:Wall of Text and constant random accusations by User:Saucysalsa30 against all disagreeing parties. The edit-warring user repeatedly made claims of "copyright infringement"[8] even though the mod in question self-reverted his removal of the paragraph [9] after a brief discussion on the mod's talk page here [10]. [11] -- Talk:Racism in the Arab world I had attempted to refute some of the points he was making (bringing up historical events completely unrelated with Iraq to attempt to "disprove" a source I had posted), yet he still showed no room for discussion and continued moving the goalposts and/or making random accusations. Comments: As a preliminary note, Qahramani44 did bring back copyright violating content. What they showed Berrely was a completely different revision that happened after being warned for the copyright violations in earlier revisions, which, whether intentional or not by Qahramani44, had the effect of confusing Berrely. See the diff here [12] [13] for the timeline, with the diffs of events provided within. I don't know why the user believed they could get away with lying. TheTimesAreAChanging also admitted on Berrely's talk page to the copyright violation taking place [14], despite lying on this noticeboard along with Qahramani44 claiming that there was no copyright violation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) This is a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. The user not only started edit warring in the first place, as explained below, but has been engaging in stalking, personal attacks, admission of ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND editing (stating in various comments and revisions notes about his efforts against "Arabs" and "Ba'athists", edit warring, and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE, such as regularly tagging sources on any content even if it has no relevance and engaging in very slanted WP:OR regularly. Most of his revision history is simply reverting/removing content he doesn't like across Wikipedia and harassing and attacking users who contest his blatantly poor editing and conduct. While I engage in WP:BRD and discussions and showing what multiple sources say (e.g. a detailed explanation of general academic consensus on a topic here[15]) before fixing/adding things, Qahramani44 has engaged in personal attacks and edit warring on no basis at all. To provide some background, this is series of WP:HOUNDING and other harassment because Qahramani44 was upset that a poor blog-style site called Iran Chamber Society he claimed to be RS was unanimously disregarded as being non-RS in various discussions such as this RS noticeboard discussion. Following almost 2 months of discussion regarding the bad source, the user's outburst in the last 24 hours only started after I went ahead and removed the bad source in the article in question, with the first revision in the barrage across a few Wikipedia articles coming just 7 minutes later[16], with Qahramani44 starting edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran. In addition to their starting and continuing edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran, Qahramani44 then via WP:HOUNDING stalked my contribution history and started edit warring on two unrelated articles as well, Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world (same exact content), including reverting to bring back copyrighted content on both in violation of WP:CV. [17] [18]. From the previous 2 citations, that is where Qahramani44 started edit warring on these two articles. You can see that's where he begins. As a result of Qahramani44's careless edit warring, he brought back copyrighted content in 2 articles, for which he was warned by the mod Berrely. [19] Furthermore, some of the diffs linked by Qahramani44 were with respect additions/corrections following Talk page discussions which he would then revert (albeit, I was the only one doing research and making points, while Qahramani44 simply engaged in more hand-waving and personal attacks). For example, I fixed continued copyright violation and some OR he added in that wasn't stated in the source, and he responded with another revert. [20] In another example, Qahramani44 was removing a on content in which he haphazardly added a source on content it not only doesn't support, but contradicts. [21] Here is a display of one of the three articles of Qahramani44 stalking me and starting an edit war on Racism in the Arab world and continuing to engage in it on no basis or substantiation: [22] - Qahramani44 stalking my activity on this article and making a spontaneous revert for no reason, despite the copyright violation resulting from the revert. This is where Qahramani44 starts edit warring on this article. [23] - Despite moderator warning regarding his copyright violation [24], he reverts again with slight modification that still includes some WP:CV copyright violation along with some evident OR that isn't said in the source as well as failed verification on a second source. [25] - Qahramani44 continuing edit warring. [26] - After fixing Qahramani's copyright violation and the OR he added in to be in line with the source, they reverted yet again. Unlike in Qahramani44's case, I substantiated and justified things in Talk. Qahramani's only Talk page involvement were some ad hominems and combative statements. TheTimesAreAChanging was engaging in the same WP:HOUNDING [27] [28], edit warring, and unconstructive insults and sarcastic replies. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I noticed Qahramani44 is either unaware or being deceitful regarding the copyright violation, so here's the timeline. His first revert each on Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, as part of WP:HOUNDING and starting his edit wars on those two articles, was them reverting back copyrighted content. [29] [30] After I had a brief IRC discussion with Berrely (I can provide transcript if needed), Berrely warned Qahramani44 for the copyright violation.[31] If you'd like to compare to the book's text, it's almost verbatim the exact same as the original content on the Wiki articles. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O What Qahramani44 is referring to with regards to Berrely came later, after Qahramani44 had brought back the content back again with slight rewording [32] only AFTER being warned by Berrely. Hopefully that clears up any confusion there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I'd also like to ask @TheTimesAreAChanging: if he'd like to participate too, since he was a party in this edit war. I likely should have opened this a few hours earlier rather than continuing to respond and inadvertently prolong this edit war. I'm not too familiar with making Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring sections so if there are any formatting issues please let me know. Thank you. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Saucysalsa30 is a uniquely tendentious and incompetent editor who has been edit warring and bludgeoning across multiple articles/talk pages for a very long time, calming down for a period only after his previous 60-hour block. He has been reverted by three different editors (including Wikaviani, Qahramani44, and myself) at Iraqi invasion of Iran and there is no support for his WP:FRINGE views there (namely, that Ba'athist Iraq was an innocent victim forced to "preemptively" invade Iran during the Iran–Iraq War, as well as the easily-debunked lie that Iraq had absolutely no territorial demands, based on a self-serving official statement from Saddam Hussein two months after the invasion had stalled and which Saucysalsa30 takes at face value). (In fact, if any admin here has the time and feels qualified to review it, I have complied massive evidence of Saucysalsa30's systematic misrepresentation of sources and aspersions directed against other users here and here, although I suspect that may be a matter for ANI rather than AN3... it's pretty stomach-churning stuff.) In any case, admins should know that Saucysalsa30 seeks to deliberately mislead you, on two fronts: The admin that Saucysalsa30 cited above has already determined that there is no WP:COPYVIO in any of the text currently being disputed (here is a diff of Saucysalsa30 arguing with said admin), yet he continues to just ignore that and pretend otherwise (cf. WP:IDHT). In addition, despite making unsubstantiated assertions of stalking and hounding, it is actually Saucysalsa30 who followed me far outside his area of interest/expertise (i.e., the Middle East) to defend naked WP:OR designed to cast doubt on the near-universal consensus of reliable sources and cybersecurity experts that Russia hacked the DNC at 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. At Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, Saucysalsa30 has been systematically whitewashing the (if anything, rather tame) discussion of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's sordid racial history, despite being called out for OR by impartial observers. For example, Saucysalsa30 has denigrated the research of highly-respected academic specialist Fred Halliday by stating that Halliday was "published by a small indie publisher ... the work itself includes various dramatic, exaggerated language and some rather unique conjecture theories, so it's a questionable source at best. ... Halliday makes a profound stretch. The overall passage in the book itself is a hand-waving and inaccurate / minimal coverage aside to the topic to make a unique claim with exceptional implications and with further hand-waving ... it's quite a stretch by Halliday ... Again, this copy-pasted content in this article is Halliday's own strange associations and redflag-leaning claim ... overall this is an evident mix of WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in addition to the it being a poor source both in general and specific to the content," despite Halliday's findings being commonplace in the academic literature and Saucysalsa30 providing zero sources of his own. In sum, Saucysalsa30 should face an escalatory block for his continued misconduct (including for attempting to deceive administrators at this forum in an effort to get an opponent blocked over a non-existent COPYVIO and thereby "win" an edit war that he initiated).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The fact that your response to your relentless WP:HOUNDING [33] [34], WP:CANVASSING with Qahramani44, and personal attacks on various articles is to engage in further personal attacks here and your own starting and engaging in edit wars is rather ironic, and your claims that don't amount to slander have been refuted or simply wrong. For example, Qahramani44 lied to Berrely about which revision involved copyright violation, showing him one that took place AFTER the copyright violation warning. You can see that timeline here [35]. Secondly, the things you bring up had been already been discussed in Talk pages (prior to your WP:HOUNDING) and noticeboards, so your accusations fall further flat on their face. I understand you are upset because you attach so much emotional value to being refuted and have a very poor track record of combative conduct, harassment, and editing (as you've been doing in the last 24 hours), but your pettiness is really starting to show. I mean the fact you're engaging and defending things like copyright violations proven OR and failed violation with the exact sourcing provided in maintenance tags and Talk pages, among other things, while simultaneously engaging in WP:HOUNDING and WP:NPA, is reprehensible and representative of all-around reprehensible conduct. Also, considering I added content and revised back, but without the blatant copyright violations and baseless WP:OR that Qahramani44 was vandalizing with, the rest of your claims are equally baseless. And oh, could you explain why you admitted to lying about the copyright violation? You admitted it happened on Berrely's talk page. [36] So why do you lie about it on this noticeboard saying it didn't happen? :) As an aside, please review WP:BOOMERANG. This precisely describes what you and Qahramani44 are doing here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The short version of Saucysalsa30's comment above is merely that Qahramani44 restored very long-standing text from Halliday 2000 that Saucysalsa30 deleted on the basis of ever-shifting, frivolous pretexts, only to be warned by Berrely that the text violated copyright, although not obviously so. In response, Qahramani44 immediately rewrote the section. Berrely mistakenly reverted the revised version, prompting a concerned Qahramani44 to ask Berrely for guidance and clarification regarding how best to avoid violating copyright in the future. At that point, Berrely acknowledged his mistake and reinstated the revised version, confident there was no longer any COPYVIO concern. Everyone has since moved on except Saucysalsa30, who has continually accused Qahramani44 and myself of telling unspecified "lies" about the incident, and who still insists that Berrely's mistaken second revert was correct "as the content still contains some copyright violation." Despite the lack of any policy-based support for the latter assertion, Saucysalsa30 employed the pretext of continued taint from the earlier COPYVIO to justify reverting the Halliday material, either in whole or in part, an additional four times across two articles after the matter had already been resolved (diffs: [37], [38], [39], [40]). In sum, Qahramani44's consistent efforts to seek guidance and mediation from administrators suggest that he made a good-faith error, quickly corrected, but Saucysalsa30's continued edit warring, WP:PAs, and attempts to mislead others into thinking that a COPYVIO is still present long after the fact are harder to understand as good faith behavior. (As an aside, Qahramani44's mistake is also relatively minor compared to that time Saucysalsa30 copied a whole paragraph directly from the Chicago Tribune into List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots and it had to be rev-deleted by Diannaa, but at no point did Qahramani44 bring up Saucysalsa30's past history, even as Saucysalsa30 berated him and called him a "liar" over and over again. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I have no idea why the edit-warring user is so fixated on this alleged "lie to Berrely", when my question to User:Berrely wasn't even about the original warning he made on my talk page, but the subsequent reversion he made on my post after I had reworded it to remove the copyright violation. Here at *18:45* Jan 19th [41] he reverts my reworded post. Here at *18:54* Jan 19th [42] I ask him whether the *revised* edition still breaks copyright. Here at *18:57* Jan 19th [43] he responds acknowledging the new version was fine and then self reverts his removal immediately after [44]. There is no conspiracy going on so there's no need to lash out at everyone here, or make baseless accusations of WP:CANVAS or of lying to admins. --Qahramani44 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) As seen above, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging are changing their story now that they got called out on the blatant lie. They went from "there was no copyright violation" to "Oh, yeah there was, but it was about something else." Qahramani44, you literally said in your opening post here: "made claims of "copyright infringement", so now you admit that you did do copyright infringement as you were warned for? It was only after the admin's warning did you go ahead and show them a completely different revision to play ignorant like you didn't carelessly edit war to bring back copyright content before their warning. Not sure if they're attempting to be funny or if this is simply backtracking. And as discussed on the pertinent Talk pages, Qahramani's "fix" mentioned by TheTimesAreAChanging still 1) included copy-pasted phrasing from the source text and 2) blatant OR not in the source text at all. This is just one example of these two users engaging in bad faith editing, stalking/harassment, and other poor conduct. Considering most of both users' history is reverting things they don't like, even a very simple addition of a source in random articles such as this most recently by TheTimesAreAChanging [45], it's very evident that they engage in unilateral reverting across Wikipedia (and edit warring, stalking, and harassment if contested). For example, most of Qahramani44's commits are reverts based on his own personal opinion such as this, with no other basis. [46] [47]. The user's only contributions are removing anything he doesn't like on the website, ironically. And Qahramani44, you should really check this out: WP:BOOMERANG. You not only started all the edit warring in the first place, engaged in stalking and harassment, further edit warring, and personal attacks, but lie and change your story every time you get called out on your false claims. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30, Qahramani44, and TheTimesAreAChanging: What a clusterfest. I wish I could mute people sometimes. I tried to review this. All 3 editors here need to stop casting aspersions immediately and turn down the temperature. Saucysalsa30, you did violate 3RR. But the tagteam reverts effectively do the same and frankly don't seem innocent. For now I'm adding full protection to 3 articles to address the immediate issue. Drmies, have you any thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) User:EvergreenFir, same thought as you: MUTE. Sweet Jesus, what is all this about, with the eternal paragraphs, the bold, the blue, the bickering. I can't follow that discussion on Talk:Ba'athism either, but what I did see was some bullshit by Saucysalsa about an academic publisher. Rienner is not "some" indie publisher; Saucysalsa seems to think that "independent" is a bad thing. It is not. Rienner is absolutely fine, until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but to clarify, they consider themselves a small mom-and-pop type indie publisher. [48] [49]. The point being I don't think anyone would claim they have anything close to the sort of reputability and scale of Wall Street Journal, Harvard University Press (a university academic publisher), Routledge, etc. But anyways that was just one among several issues brought up. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I just woke up to this. I reverted the edit as a copyvio per request in IRC help, and left a note on the users talk re it. I really did not intend to engage in an edit war, or be pinged 7 times. Nonetheless these are some very unstable articles, and following WP:BRD seems to be non-existent. I would just like to correct I am not a mod, or administrator, and am not in a position to make blocks, etc. I hope this sorts itself out. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I would like to apologize for that, Berrely. (I count three pings by Saucysalsa30 and one ping by Qahramani44 in this thread alone.) For the record, however, the content of all three of these articles has been extremely stable for many, many years—prior to Saucysalsa30's appearance, nothing like this occurred, and I can easily demonstrate that virtually all of the content that Saucysalsa30 has been removing is just about as long-standing as it gets. Moreover, I've been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years and while I have made many mistakes, I've never been known to WP:BLUDGEON discussions in the way that Saucysalsa30 tends to do wherever he makes an appearance. When it comes to the question of both article stability and who bears primary responsibility for the length of what should have been a fairly routine AN3 report, I would urge you and EvergreenFir to look a little deeper before declaring "a pox on both your houses!"—especially in light of Saucysalsa30's very recent sanction for edit warring on this same article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Please spare the continued slander, deceit, and whitewashing of your own WP:HOUNDING across various articles, personal attacks, and other harassment, and bludgeoning across almost every article you participate on and reverting anything you don't like on the website. The stalking and tag-teaming is not an indication of good conduct, esp. considering Qahramani44 started and engaged in edit warring and you decided to join in again. The articles were not "extremely" stable, and the "stability" has more to do with the fact that they're very low traffic articles with little to no scrutiny. For example, the fact I found verbatim copy-paste copyright violations in 2 articles that had been up since 2012 and 2015, respectively (which carry heavy legal implications), among other fixes, indicates the poor shape of the articles. Reflecting, it's ridiculous to think this all happened because you and Qahramani44 became enraged that after I spent 2 months of discussing the legitimacy of a random blog website unacceptable per Wiki guidelines in various boards (only because Qahramani44 and yourself claimed on no basis was a reliable source), it was removed as a source. Qahramani44 jumped into action to start this craziness within 7 minutes of its removal, incredibly. Seriously, you both put way too much emotion and energy into vengeance after being "wrong". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Stop with the aspersions and bickering. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The articles are only "stable" (not really) because editors are scared of confronting the excessive number of people police watching articles like it's their personal pet project. Not just of getting reverted for no reason but also for getting harassed and having things in other articles reverted and changed. Articles reach a status quo depending which POV pushing group "owns" it and everyone afraid to edit out of fear their "own" status quo articles get ruined in revenge. The fact that there's a lengthy process going on that escalated to this level after starting with merely removing blogs and unreliable sources (which should have been straightforward and standard) are a good demonstration. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC) As a result of Qahramani44's filing, we have determined that Saucysalsa30 (who was blocked for editing warring on this same article less than three months ago), violated 3RR again (per EvergreenFir) and used a "bullshit" excuse to denigrate the highly-reliable academic expert Fred Halliday (per Drmies). That seems to be the cliffnotes version, for anyone interested in keeping score.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Who is the "we"? Only you, who not only started along with Qahramani but were directly involved in the harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring. Sorry, but a verbatim copy-paste copyright violation [50] [51] which is what Qahramani44 was originally reverting when he started his WP:HOUNDING and edit warring in the first place is not "bullshit". Perhaps review WP:CV if you're unfamiliar with copyright infringement. If you're going to give a "CliffNotes" version, at least don't lie in the process. And has already been demonstrated but just to be perfectly clear, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging not only started the edit warring in the first place, coupled with WP:HOUNDING to war on 2 other articles and other forms of misconduct like the canvassing and personal attacks, but continued to engage in it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: where exactly is the copyvio? I see a few snippets that could use rewording but no sentences directly lifted. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC) EvergreenFir Here is a screenshot from the book itself, as I'd shown to Berrely over IRC. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O Then compare it to the reverts on the two articles bringing back the copyvio [52] [53]. Word-for-word copy pastes from the book. Just to give an example here of a couple of the sentences from the Wiki articles: "the Iraqi Baathists brought the ideas of Sati' al-Husri to their full, official and racist culmination. For the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Iranian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Iranian themes." And then from the book as shown in the screenshot: "it was the Ba'athists who brought his ideas to their full official and racist culmination. For or the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Persian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Persian themes." Oddly, the only thing that was changed was changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki articles, which also creates a different meaning. Basically, put the linked diff on the Halliday section in the Wiki articles side-by-side with the screenshot from the book's text and you'll see sentences directly lifted from the book, same wording used and all. Please let me know if that's still not clear. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC) This should make it more straight-forward to visualize. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: That 2nd sentence is indeed close paraphrasing and a problem. But there are ways of dealing with it that do not involve blanking. I might be "too lenient" but just fix it and move on. However, I don't see the copy-paste you mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) EvergreenFir Please see this screenshot that puts the book text side by side with the Wiki diff. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg To give another example in that same passage: Wiki diff: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, Baghdad organised the expulsion of Iraqis of Iranian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. Halliday says that it was the Ba'athists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Iranian migrants and communities in the Persian Gulf region." Book: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, the Ba'th party organized the expulsion of Iraqis of Persian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. ... It was the Ba'thists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Persian migrants and communities in the Gulf" The only differences were changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki article, changing "Ba'th party" in the book to "Baghdad" in Wiki, and adding "Halliday says". Otherwise, straight copy-paste. Hopefully that's clearer. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) To avoid any confusion, there was no edit war over the text above, which was not reinstated after the COPYVIO was pointed out by Berrely. The text that Saucysalsa30 reverted an additional four times (diffs: [54], [55], [56], [57]) across two articles after Berrely stated that the matter had been resolved to his satisfaction read (in full): The Ba'athists in Iraq portrayed Iran and Iranians as an ancient enemy of the Arabs, with rhetoric often tinged with pan-Arabism and blatant racism and heavily inspired by the works of Arab nationalist Sati' al-Husri. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Saddam oversaw the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Persians and Feyli Kurds from Iraq. In the name of "defending Arabism" the Ba'ath also promoted chauvinist myths of Iranians being migrants to the Persian Gulf region. This snafu also has nothing to do with Saucysalsa30's violation of 3RR at a completely different article, Iraqi invasion of Iran, where he has been both warned and sanctioned previously. There are no extenuating circumstances in that case, so this entire lengthy conversation is essentially a distraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – 2 days by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:24.107.11.252 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Semi)

Page: John B. Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.107.11.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001571661 by NedFausa (talk) You cite splc as a source...that’s as authoritative as using the dailybeast as a fact citation."
2. 08:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001571431 by NedFausa (talk) cancel culture is a disease. Alt-right is largely a fantasy, wells is a radio host."
3. 08:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001571095 by Ashleyyoursmile You’re strictly editing this to force hate speech links. Shame."
4. 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001571010 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
5. 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001570922 by NedFausa (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"
2. 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"
3. 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John B. Wells."
4. 08:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ notifying of talk page discussion"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

The IP has been removing the source and changing content without adding another source to back up the added claim. They have been reverted by two different editors (NedFausa and myself). Has violated 3RR, I've initiated a discussion on the article talk page to which they haven't responded. Yet they continue with this behaviour. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected 3 days by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:XiAdonis reported by User:Ayleks (Result: )

Page: Nikkei, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XiAdonis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: XiAdonis (talk)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rising_sun_flag XiAdonis (talk) I initially messaged the user XiAdonis on his user talk page instead of the article talk page. he has yet to respond on the article talk page. Comments:

The user XiAdonis has reverted several of my personal edits and contributions to the Nikke Inc. page and has broken the 3 revert rule. He has also reverted several of my edits on the rising sun flag page but since he hasnt broken the three revert rule I will seek resolution through third party there. Looking through his user talk page he has broken the 3rr before, as well as what looks like several other rules.

This is my first time reporting and I am still unfamiliar with the template so please let me know if there is more info needed or if i should change anything. Ayleks Ayleks (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 of your edits on that page within 24 hours, i did so because i view those additions as being unencyclopedic, if that constitutes edit warring then im fine accepting the concequences, i listed my reasoning in the edit summaries. 2 of those reverts you listed however are from seperate additions made by a different user. XiAdonis (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Darouet (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: prior to removal, and removed

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jaydoggmarco clearing previous warnings related to Kiki Camarena from his talk page in September

Jaydoggmarco has made this talk page comment, before their second two reverts: [68]

Comments:
User was already warned about editing at Kiki Camarena previously [69], and recently came off of a 6-month American Politics topic ban [70]. Darouet (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've notified the editor here [71]. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, is Joefromrandb's behavior at Kiki Camarena not equally objectionable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page asking to discuss before making any changes and he kept reverting and refusing to respond. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Joefromrandb did not break 3RR, and Jaydoggmarco, whose talk page message involves no substantive discussion other than a statement of disagreement, has been warned and sanctioned recently in this same topic area. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, Joefromrandb has a lengthy block log for disruptive editing (although, admittedly, nothing recent), didn't discuss at all, and reverted four times in 33 hours. Presumably any administrator will take that into account when ruling on this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I admit, I didn't check Joefromrandb's own rap sheet. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe has also stalked my edits and reverted a lot of them after i edited the Jon Schaffer article. Look at his edit history. Darouet also has falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link to the referenced sockpuppet complaint [72], which didn't include an accusation, and at this point is stale — the IP disruption stopped after my complaint. -Darouet (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The very conspicuous out-of-nowhere appearance notwithstanding: meh. Was my behavior "equally objectionable"? No. Was I equally guilty of edit-warring? Yes. I indeed did have a look at this user's edits after he trolled the Jon Schaffer article; while not rising to the level of what he did there, this user has myriad inappropriate edits recently, including unmodified recidivism at biographies of living persons. His edits to the Kiki Camarena article were egregiously inappropriate, as was the pathetic attempt to insist that talk page consensus is necessary to maintain the status quo of the article, and until such a consensus is achieved, his changes are not to be reverted. At a minimum, this user has serious competence issues. Again, I was absolutely edit-warring. I don't say that proudly, but as I'm disgusted by the perennial ubiquitous hypocrisy at this board, I won't be a part of it. Yes I was. I was editing at a time at which I was stressed out and pissed off, something I certainly know is not a good idea. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks, I'm not the only one who has edited on the Kiki article and who disagreed with Darouet, My edits were supported by several users. Talk page discussion is important given that the information in the documentary is being challenged in an ongoing lawsuit and There are documents that contradict several of the claims in the documentary. You don't even know the information that's being debated on. None of my edits have been trolling. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Prosecution rests. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Crunchynotsmooth reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Conservative Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Refer to talk and RfC. Undid revision 1001751135 by Moxy (talk)"
2. 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Refer to RfC on changing “centre-right” to “centre-right to right” on talk page"
3. 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Please do not engage in an edit war over this. Instead, you should refer to the talk page for discussion."
4. 13:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Implemented change supported by incumbent member of arbitration committee. Any issues, see talk page"
5. 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Expanded idelogy to account for RW factions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
2. 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Some basic reading */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* RfC on changing “centre-right” to “centre-right to right” */ ce"

Comments:

Just need the RFC to run its course without disruption to the article itself. Editor in question has been told the social norms here but is not willing to abide by our basic editing norms. Perhaps a warning from an administrator will help...would also be nice to clear up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru as this situation is causing difficulty as well. Tried a usertalk page conversation to no avail.Moxy 🍁 05:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Moxy, you beat me to it. Yes, this is almost certainly a sock of Politialguru. Clearly passes the WP:QUACK test. His previous socks have appeared on this notice board for edit warring in the past, with exactly the same strategies used. — Czello 08:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:JaMongKut reported by User:Giraffer (Result: PBlocked )

Page: List of largest Hindu temples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "I've told you many times, Please just don't claim it by your own knowledge. Use reliable source to claim it. And Don't just Undo without proper reason, if someone is correcting your mistake."
2. 08:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Please just don't claim it by your own knowledge. Use reliable source to claim it. correct your sentence, it IS not Hindu temple It WAS Hindu Temple."
3. 08:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Are you not understanding what I'm saying??? You are just going on changing the article without proper source."
4. 06:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Lots of the time I've asked you for not doing such big changes without any Proper cited source. If you wanna make such changes please cite the reliable source then. And PLEEAAASSEEE DON'T DO EDIT WAR."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) to 04:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Please don't make such big changes without PROPER cited source claiming the SAME."
   2. 04:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001633670 by Naveen Ramanathan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

Edit warring on List of largest Hindu temples, List of Hindu temples outside India, and Angkor Wat. They've also been removing talk page warnings, having recieved a 3RR warning and another page-specific edit warring warning. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Partial Blocked from List of Hindu temples by Callanecc. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:82.54.100.238 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: )

Page: Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.54.100.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "you're behaviour is shameful"
2. 15:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001801349 by B732 (talk)"
3. 11:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001800729 by Jonathan Deamer (talk)"
4. 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "don't use your political ideology on a murder. Reinoehl was obviously the killer, the videos show it clearly and don't tell me that he wasn't a far-left, antifa, activist. Please keep you ideological ideas away and respect the victim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Why politic on WIkipedia?? */ Reply"

Comments:

User:AP295 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

Page: Basis (linear algebra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AP295 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73] original bold edit, changing long-standing wording
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra)#"in_mathematics"_vs_"in_linear_algebra"

Comments:
User appears to reject the principle of consensus (see Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra)#Sequences_or_sets but also all their engagement with anyone). --JBL (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:86.132.155.244 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: )

Page: Otto Skorzeny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.132.155.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Death */ No verification."
2. 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001811667 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)See note on talk page. The Telegraph is 100% wrong, as the videos show."
3. 13:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001811401 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)The sources are 100% FALSE. See the videos of his funeral service."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Funeral */ Reply"
2. 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC) on Otto Skorzeny "Undid revision 1001812449 by 86.132.155.244 (talk) I saw the note, you saying "The Telegraph is wrong" does not make it so."

Comments:

User:69.142.142.173 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page: Creation science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.142.142.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
2. 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
3. 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
4. 21:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
5. 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [78]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sheer creationist POV-pushing edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Blocked by Barkeep49. Darren-M talk 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Tennineeighttwo reported by User:203.18.34.190 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:

This user continually removes a short referenced and sourced paragraph I attempt to add to this article about the father of several band members (given the band had been in the media for the fathers connections to Australia's immigration detention regime, it is what I would consider to be relevant). I had lodged a potential COI as their only edits are to revert my edits, however they have denied any COI. The edit warring still persists. 203.18.34.190 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted a proposal for dispute resolution on Talk:Sheppard (band), then I saw that was report was filed. 203.18.34.190 also opened a WP:COIN complaint [85] accusing Tennineeighttwo of a COI. Tennineeighttwo has stated they do not have a COI. [86] Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, which I will repeat here. Another editor has stated their agreement in the content being removed, please see the most recent update of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheppard_(band)

1) As previously stated on the talk page in 2019, User:203.18.34.190 edits conflict with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Has the "implication into money laundering of money from PNG into Australia" been placed at Greg's doorstep in a court of law (or similar)? If he has not had a legal opportunity to defend himself against any allegations made, then wikipedia articles should not impugn his professional reputation, even tangentially, by using this phrase.

2) Again, as previously stated on this page - Relevance: This article is about Sheppard, the band, and not directly about Greg. The possibility of his firm being linked with alleged political corruption is not relevant to the band's history. In an article on Greg himself, it could be relevant; He is notable enough for his own article.

3) The suggestion is that this is relevant to the band because Greg was the financier and manager of Sheppard at the time (2015). As you can see from this industry article in June 2014, the bad were managed by Chugg and Scooter Braun. There are several other articles out there confirming these dates. https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/justin-biebers-manager-to-launch-aussie-band-into-america/ I have searched and there are ZERO industry articles to be found that state Greg Sheppard as the manager of the band at any time, or the financier of the band. Therefore it is a)false information, and b) any information about Greg Sheppard is not relevant to the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennineeighttwo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Tennineeighttwo (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:80.2.122.228

This user has been reverting mine and three other editors edits at least 12 times in the last hour on the Godzilla vs. Kong page. I have warned them and they even stated that they had recently been blocked for edit warring. This can be seen on the edit history of the page. They begged me to stop because I am "small minded." They are tagging their edits as undoing vandalism when that's clearly not the case. Thank you.(Samurai Kung fu Cowboy) (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board with them being blocked again, due to their contributions at 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season. They have clear WP:COMPETENCE issues too, as they don't seem to know how to get to an article talk page and resist most attempts at engagement on their user talk page. – PeeJay 20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:206.198.189.71 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

Page: Kathleen Hicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 206.198.189.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "i checked that like you gave me, and there is nothing about US federal government documents and transcripts being not reliable, indeed to the best of my ability, it seems they are TOTALLY reliable, and bear in mind I am taking information directly from quotes in the very words Hicks used herself"
2. 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from a SENATE hearing, a matter of public record, is NOT RELIABLE, are you freaking out of your mind? You think this is misinformation, its from 2012 ... for crying out loud, google it yourself!"
3. 20:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "WHAT!!!! I went an got unimpeachable evidence, just like i was told to do"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 20:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "how is that, for the original source, i can put more info in, like date and persons"
   2. 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal */"
   3. 20:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal */"
   4. 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal */"
   5. 20:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "oh, and lastly, go fuck yourselves"
5. 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "why not, sure looks good to me and checks out with other sites, maybe you don't like it because it is an information aggregator or collector like wikipedia"
6. 20:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "This information is not poorly sourced, and most importantly, it is TRUE! That counts for something, right?"
7. 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kathleen Hicks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Since filing, they've continued to revert three more times despite an active discussion on their talk page and the article talk page. CUPIDICAE💕 20:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandhya Ch1 reported by User:FrogCrazy (Result: )

Page: Vellam (2021 film)
User being reported: User:Sandhya Ch1

Previous version reverted to: 1002054449

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1002009209
2. 1002010979
3. 1002013600
4. 1002022483
5. 1002054449

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

1. User_talk:Sandhya_Ch1

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

Comments:
There appears to be an edit war involving two users on this page adding and removing the "reception" section; additionally this user removed NPOV and other tags without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogCrazy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Legendstreak0 reported by User:Bastun (Result: )

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Legendstreak0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Per sherdog"
2. 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002074438 by Bastun (talk) FOLLOW SHERDOG"
3. 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002060586 by NEDOCHAN (talk) per Sherdog , follow the rules"
4. 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Per sherdog"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Weight - January 22 2021 */"
2. and that whole TP section.

Comments: Legendstreak0 appears to have reverted no less than 5 other editors, per the page history. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

i would like to make my case clear , why are users like you seemingly biased and make edits that don't seem constructive when it comes to conor mcgregor . you should know that many other people before me tried to add secondary sources tp other fighters just like you did to conor mcgregor's page only to get banned , but with you its all butterflies and no one stands up for the reverts you make . this shall stop , follow sherdog or leave the secondary sources i made on the nick diaz, gsp , and tony ferguson pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

hello, i wanted to add that actually the last revert edit that i made was the agreed upon result in the talk page and discussion over the article that we had a "war" in Legendstreak0 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please could the editor who reviews this also conduct an SPI into Legendstreak? NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Legendstreak0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what you are talking about but accusing others of being “sockpuppets” won’t work and you will be reported now for the 5-7 reverts you made under 24 hours Legendstreak0 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sloppyjoes7 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

Page: Lauren Boebert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sloppyjoes7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "After careful consideration, taking into account approximately 10 articles, no quote supports the assertion she "supports" QAnon. One single statement, taken out of context, which she later said was "vague" and said is being used to "attack" her, does not belong in the opening. She even clarified the vague statement by explicitly stating that she does not follow QAnon, and is not into conspiracy theories. The talk page provides no quote or statement by her that she believes or follows QAnon."
2. 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "3 citations, none of which provides any quote or statement by her that she "supports" it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002098805 by Praxidicae (talk) Neither link says that she "expressed support" for QAnon. The Talk page says this. Saying she "expressed support" for it is literally not in the citations."
   2. 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Removed one word to closer match citations."
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "This has two citations. Neither one says she supports QAnon. Sentence was factually incorrect, and should probably be entirely removed."
   2. 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Finished fixing sentence to actually match what the citations say."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */"
3. 21:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */"
4. 21:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "fix fmt"
5. 22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */ i'd deny this too if i had stoked the fires that lead to 5 people being murdered by insane conspiracy theorists too."
6. 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */"

Comments:

User:Ata Barış reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )

Page: List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ata Barış (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 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) to 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002111060 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) I just wrote a little info for MPT. No government website says that K.irpi is a copy of another vehicle. Variants of the Altay Tank have been added again. Hisar-A's photo has been added again. It was added to the variants of the Yıldırım missile. Reference will be added to these. Please do not delete it. Don't swear at my talk page. I will correct the wrong places. But here are t"
   2. 09:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
   3. 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
2. 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002095094 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) Don't be disrespectful. Don't make changes to your mind. Don't swear on my talk page and the changes you made are wrong. The changes have been reverted."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */ Edited"
   2. 16:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */ Edited"
   3. 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Rockets and artillery */ Yıldırım IV added"
   4. 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Assault and battle rifles */"
   5. 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Tanks */ Variant of the Altay tank added"
   6. 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Anti-aircraft */ Hisar-A's photo added"
   7. 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Please */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* over here */ rep"

Comments:

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Legendstreak0 (Result: )

Page: Georges St-Pierre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NEDOCHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] 10:37, 23 January 2021‎ NEDOCHAN talk contribs‎ m 82,615 bytes −76‎ Undid revision 1002212506 by Legendstreak0
2. [diff] 10:28, 23 January 2021‎ NEDOCHAN talk contribs‎ 82,615 bytes −76‎ Undid revision 1002211753 by Legendstreak0
3. [diff] 10:26, 23 January 2021‎ NEDOCHAN talk contribs‎ 82,615 bytes −54‎ Stable version
4. [diff] 09:24, 23 January 2021‎ NEDOCHAN talk contribs‎ 82,615 bytes −74‎ No discussion taken place. Per source unless consensus is reached

1. [diff] 10:26, 23 January 2021‎ NEDOCHAN talk contribs‎ 81,290 bytes −66‎ Undid revision 1002210466 by Legendstreak0

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&oldid=1002212763

Comments:

sorry for the seemingly messy report but this is my first time doing it , I would love to report the user nedochan for reverting edits and starting an edit war in the georges st Pierre pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

we are trying to reach a consensus just like the Conor page will be changed tomorrow’s, the gsp page should always be 185 for the weight and so does nick Diaz’s weight Legendstreak0 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)