Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive406

User:EamonM25 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is the final time I will edit this and this is now on the version it was on prior to the editing spree which nobody had come up to me to talk about. Cya Davey2010"
 * 2)  "updated name sourcing, changed it back to yours just so you could see this edit before I put it up full time. Overall delivery, livery status and depots have been removed and only the name, image and fleet number remain as some buses had the same livery."
 * 3) 13:51, 5 April 2020 "updated name sourcing, changed it back to yours just so you could see this edit before I put it up full time. Overall delivery, livery status and depots have been removed and only the name, image and fleet number remain as some buses had the same livery."
 * 4) 13:24, 5 April 2020 "Sourcing for the Special Livery Section"
 * 5) 10:23, 4 April 2020 "In this, I have changed all issues that you have described to me for this to count. I have kept the fleet list as I believe it adds crucial detail that makes this page one of the most interesting bus pages in Wikipedia. All copyright changes have been made via wikimedia commons and shall be visible by clicking on each individual image."
 * 6) 15:25, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)
 * 7) 14:50, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)
 * 8) 12:05, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on EamonM25. (TW)"
 * 2)   "3rr notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Discussion on my talkpage


 * Comments:

User is currently edit warring at Brisbane Transport, I've repeatedly told them to source their content via edit summaries as well as on my talkpage, and even went as far as pasting the entire article to their subpage (User:EamonM25/Brisbane Transport) however none of this has had any effect, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't necessary to ban as I already said I have given up editing pages. I understand he has a task to do and I respect that, all, in the end, I was trying to make the page a lot better. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonM25 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Giving up editing the page doesn't make it okay nor will it make it go away, I feel I did everything in my power not to have you blocked yet you continued to revert, I even gave you 2-3 tutorials on how to source articles too....., I told you yesterday if you revert I'd take you here ... and here we are. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Overall really don't care so yeah. There are many bad words I could say but I don't wanna use em so cya. Ill be back and you will never know
 * EamonM25 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sticks and stones ....., Threatening to sock doesn't help your case here and before you dig yourself a hole unless you have a valid reason to have another account then you're not allowed to have 2 accounts...,
 * Given this isn't going anywhere I'll stop replying now. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bye Felicia — Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonM25 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:EamonM25 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they edit Brisbane Transport unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:188.77.231.243 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Semi, Block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

See page history, it is obvious.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rapunzel (disambiguation). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, slow moving edit war that resumed immediately after 3 month protect on this page expired. Same user as before as is obvious, different IP. Last was blocked for edit warring. See previous report at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400. User still ignores messages and refuses to communicate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:MelanieN has put indefinite semiprotection on Rapunzel (disambiguation). I am blocking the IP for two months at Special:Contributions/188.77.231.243. (For the future we should keep an eye on the /24 range at Special:Contributions/188.77.231.0/24, where the same person may have been active since 2018). Let me know if you see related pages that would benefit from semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the range used is mostly Special:Contributions/188.77.230.0/23. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:AmirsamanZare reported by User:LissanX (Result: Blocked)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User arbitrarily wipes sourced content. According to his inflammatory attacks on my talk page, it's apparently just because it makes scholars he admires look bad. I asked him to prove his claims that the content on the two pages were malicious lies, as he inferred, which he ignored and persisted in wiping the content. — LissanX (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I wiped the sources because they simply aren't true, also I mentioned that a website linked as a source isn't available anymore! I created a separate section with the sunni opinion of the Mahdi but you keep removing it and refusing to be neutral and instead of spreading religious and sectarian hatred by claiming sunni scholars hated the family of the prophet or that they accepted someone to be the mahdi. I ask you again, please stop adding shia propaganda to articles that are supposed to be neutral AmirsamanZare (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are serious about WP:Neutrality, or about Sunni opinions on the Twelve Imams, then why did you claim that no Sunni scholars accept the son of Hasan al-Askari as the Mahdi, when you were told that in fact there were? Madelung, Wilferd gave a list of Sunni scholars who did accept that the Mahdi was Hasan's son, in "Al-Mahdī" (Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 5, 1986, pages 1231–1238, ISBN 90-04-07819-3), so your edits are not neutral, but WP:Biased. Leo1pard (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can User:AmirsamanZare explain why they shouldn't be blocked for personal attacks, for this comment? ("Stop attributing lies to Sunni scholars..") You gave LissanX an ironic award, naming him . It doesn't appear that AmirsamanZare is capable of editing neutrally on these topics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for calling him a shia propagandist but I have given suffecent proof on the talk page of Ali al-Ridha to prove that those are lies against al-Dhahabi! Aslo I added a seperate section in the article which expalins the belif of the sunnis when it came to Hassan al askari being the mahdi, the article claimed that scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ad-Dhahabi saw him as the mahdi is completly false and twelver propaganda, becouse if they had accepted him as the imam they would have left the fold of sunnism. AmirsamanZare (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant the son of Hasan al-Askari, not Hasan himself. A number of Sunnis accepted that the Mahdi is Hasan's son Muhammad. Leo1pard (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty clear, to me anyway, that AmirsamanZare has severe anti-Shia animosity which fuels his bad faith edits and personal attacks. He keeps making outlandish, libelous claims like "stop adding shia propaganda", "The Shia propagandist of the year, Wikipedia edition", etc. The irony is that I’m not even a Shia Muslim, I identify as non-denominational. He even admits here that his changes are solely his own personal POV, saying "the article claimed that scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ad-Dhahabi saw him as the mahdi is completly false and twelver propaganda, becouse if they had accepted him as the imam they would have left the fold of sunnism." For what it's worth, this claim doesn’t even make sense theologically as Sunni scholars could simply accept the son of Hasan al-Askari as the Mahdi while still rejecting the other Imams and not contradict their Sunni views. — LissanX (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for personal attacks. User:AmirsamanZara did not withdraw his charge that his opponent was engaged in 'lies'. He also 'wiped the sources because they simply aren't true'. This user should become familiar with the usage of WP:Reliable sources. If you think bad sources are in the article, identify them and explain the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tullyo reported by User:Nihlus (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contestant progress */The queens got positive and negative critiques and as always they were called safe in that order (from best to worst leaving the top 2 last for the lipsync of course), this is also how the first time the board was updated and its also like this on the official wikia. By that being said stop changing it and get over it."
 * 2)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 3)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 4)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 5)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 6)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 1)  "/* Contestant progress */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Discussion can be found here

User is well aware that they are edit warring as they have essentially had a pattern of it before. Please check the removed messages on their talk page for more information. Nihlus 20:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Cdneh95 reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This report comes four months after the firts attempt to reach Cdneh95 was made over the page's talk page. Even after being noticed on his own talk page (links above) as well as on the page's talk page  the user kept reverting the page, against the agreed upon form for it, reached over the talk page. I'll ask for Cdneh95 to be barred from editing the page anymore. Deancarmeli (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours for long term edit warring. Cdneh95 has been constantly reverting this article since November 2019 and has never posted on a talk page in their whole career. Other editors have made reasonable efforts to get their attention but without success. The user has been blocked twice before. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Jordanene7 reported by User:Þjarkur (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Real Housewives of New Jersey. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This new user is rapidly changing all instances of (–present) to (–2020) despite multiple people reverting them. Disruptive editing on top of edit warring. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Doremon9087 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 948880246 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 948879231 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 947762837 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yogeshwar Dutt. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Yogeshwar Dutt. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps on adding caste of the subject when there is an established consensus that caste of a WP:BLP requires self-identification. I've explained to them multiple times in the edit summaries and their talk page. This particular user is known for their Brahmin caste POV push and have been reverted and warned by many users besides me.

Pinging since one of the discussion happened in his t/p here. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging other users familiar with this topic . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , they are a suspected sock of the disruptive, blocked editor Pandit9087108. So I've filed a relevant SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Pandit9087108. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A simple glance at the user's talk page is more than enough for me to attached a WP:NOTHERE to them. Ifnord (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a persistent problem with not including verifiable sources, with an instance as recently as this morning. This is despite previously receiving a final warning for this behaviour (as well as several more warnings since). Alivardi (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reported user has already been indefinitely blocked. So this thread can be closed now. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Đông Minh reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning was deleted by Đông Minh (Oh ! Phải, bạn là thành viên wikipedia, tôi cũng vậy, bạn lấy tư cách gì mà đặt bảng báo bất lịch sự đó Đông Minh (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and revision summaries. Đông Minh left this message in Vietnamese on my Talk Page:

Comments:

Tôi vi phạm 3 lần nhưng bạn cũng vi phạm 3 lần, bạn vi phạm trước. Và bạn lấy quyền gì mà cảnh báo tôi. Chúng ta sẽ tập trung vào nội dung tranh chấp chứ. Đông Minh (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist#C%E1%BB%ADa_Vi%E1%BB%87t
 * . The 3RR violation is straightforward, but refusing to speak in English and then telling the other person to use Google Translate strikes me as trolling. Communication is required, and I see no good faith attempts to communicate here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Qiushufang, User:Gun Powder Ma and User:ArchimedesTheInventor (Result: All warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user is editing warring over the same thing over a range of articles, including Matchlock, Arquebus, History of the firearm, Handgun, History of gunpowder and others. The subject of the dispute is a claim that rests on a source that I removed because it was quoted falsely. I gave in the edit summary the correct wording of the source plus page title (here, for example). Could someone please tell the user that he has to provide the full source on talk page if he wants to keep it? IMO the burden of proof is now on him. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile he has done so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

After engaging in the talk page, User:Gun Powder Ma has not responded to any of the issues I have brought up and has instead engaged in non sequitur attacks that bear no relevance to the subject at hand. It seems given his history of edits that he is engaged in some form of sophisticated editing war, not with my specific users, but with any article that he deems not Western oriented enough or misleading in that they do not credit the West, or more specifically Greco-Roman culture with inventing x thing first. In argument, he is facetious, and in response, he provides non sequiturs. Notice in Talk:History of gunpowder, he never once addresses the subject of misrepresentation, and switches to attacking me on sources with claims that I never made. I merely indicated that he when deleted the content, he used a single word quotation "disputable" from another source as justification for other cited content. Furthermore, I proved he was in fact misrepresenting the source he quoted, to which he did not respond. He deleted the content even though his issue, that it was "disputable", had already been addressed through the second sentence noting that the arquebuses in question may have been small cannons instead.

He has since reported me for supposed sock puppeteering using User:ArchimedesTheInventor, despite the fact that he engaged both of us at different times on different subjects, and I did not engage with User:ArchimedesTheInventor's issues prior to User:Gun Powder Ma's own fight with me. User:ArchimedesTheInventor first started his edits in 2018 and had no connection to me prior to the previous day and I fail to see our connection other than our problems with Gun Powder Ma. To have used this supposed sock puppet, I would have had to create it years prior, used it specifically to make edits to a single subject, that is Trip hammer, and then guessed that someone would two years later pick a beef with both that subject and an entirely unrelated in subject (Ottoman usage of the arquebus). With that kind of foresight, I should just get into stocks and options for I should be a billionaire by now. Which is more likely? That there is more than one editors who contribute articles about Chinese history or inventions, or that a user who makes it his agenda to prove that x thing was invented in Europe first has run afoul of those he ticked off? Note that his beef with me didn't even concern Chinese inventions but the usage of arquebuses (a gunpowder weapon) by the Ottomans and their dating.

Here are a list of pages User:Gun Powder Ma modified specifically to prove that x thing was done in Europe first:

Water wheel: Before: After:

Trip hammer: Before After:

Crank (mechanism): Before: After:  - ironic considering his reason for the edit includes "restore chronology" even though he did not do that

Crankshaft: Before: After:  - says he restored content from mass deletion but really just reorganized it so that Europe is before China - also notice that he deleted nearly all content for the Middle East and China sections while combining both into a truncated smaller section with material specifically to denigrate both

Handgun: Before: After:  - interestingly here he just removed my addition of citation unclear with the reason "Go to talk and cite your references in full. You are misrepresenting them." in edit summary, showing that he didn't even read what I had added, only that he was mass reverting all my changes

Rammed earth: Before: After:  - only change was that he removed a picture of Chinese rammed earth and said it was invented in the near east instead

Wheelbarrow: Before After:

He also has a habit of listing any articles that do not match up to his expectations in terms of content for deletion:, : reasons being it sucks and doesn't have enough content about the West, which is ironic considering when Archimedes and I had a problem with his own sources and reasons for deletion, he either outright ignored us or committed to non sequiturs. Qiushufang (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * More evidence of User:Gun Powder Ma's behavior of the similar type can be found, stretching back over a decade. Evidently this is not new to him. 05:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What does the source actually say? The reference in the article provides a direct and straightforward quote that "In the first half of the 15th century, they began to use matchlock arquebuses". You seem to be alleging that this quote is out of context and thus false. What is the additional context that is being left out? ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The source was only half-quoted, likely willfully so. The full sentence is: "Initially the Janissaries were equipped with bows, crossbows, and javelins. In the first half of the 15th century, they began to use matchlock arquebuses, although the first references to the Ottomans’ use of tüfek or hand firearms of the arquebus type (1394, 1402, 1421, 1430, 1440, 1442) are disputable." Disputable they are and I wrote that in the edit summaries from the start but Qiushufang still edit-warred over them for days until he bothered to look up the source himself. That is disruptive behaviour IMO. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which was in fact already noted in the original content you deleted, which stated that they may have in fact been just small cannons. In fact, you would know this if in you read the original source, or even the talk page where I provided the entire paragraph. I then improved on the original content to make it clearer and you did not respond to that. You just attacked me on claims which I did not make about other sources.Qiushufang (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. You reverted me across the board and restored the false quote at a number of articles even though I provided in the edit summary the full rationale:
 * Matchlock
 * History of the firearm
 * Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire
 * Musket
 * Arquebus
 * History of gunpowder
 * For the removals of other false quotes I also provided my reasons on talk Saidel and Nicolle. Still waiting for your reply there why you want to keep them.... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you only respond when coerced with extreme pressure, and badly at that. In Matchlock you used Agoston's source as justification for deleting other sources, which I restored because you made no mention of them at all. I did not say anything about Saidel or Nicolle other than you made no mentioin of them in the edit summary or justify their deletion. Of course that is until I proved you were misrepresenting Agoston in Talk:History of gunpowder, at which point you switched tact and attacked me over sources I made no claims about. The same thing occurred in HIstory of the firearm, where you took the single word "disputable" as justification for deletion, whereas Agoston says they appeared in the first half of the 15th century, and the dating is simply a range. The content I deleted in Musket was irrelevant to the article and already covered in Arquebus. In fact the content didn't even concern you since it wasn't an edit you made. In Arquebus, I reverted the change because your concern was already addressed by the statement that they may have just been small cannons, as I have stated over and over and over again. Same with History of gunpowder. Qiushufang (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Notice how User:Gun Powder Ma no longer responds after being called out? He has since continued to edit other pages in the same pattern as before without first resolving the current issue, nor has he responded to my comments or User:ArchimedesTheInventor's on his accusation of me supposedly sock puppeting: . I would gladly make a truce with him to both stop editing until both his report of me and Archimedes' of him are resolved. Qiushufang (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user is ignoring sourcing or preventing the updating of articles by using old sources while not understanding what those same old sources are saying. This includes dismissing a source for being "out of its depth" on the basis that it's not written by an archaeologist. And when mentioned that the source is in fact written by an archaeologist named Burnham (and specialized in the subject, I might add), he ignores the response and still deleted relevant quotes from Burnham from the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trip_hammer&diff=949560207&oldid=949500696). User also tries to paint his own sources as "more recent scholarship" here even though they were published in 1997 and 2002 whereas the sources provided to him which says contrary was published as recently as 2017. Look at Crank (mechanism), Crankshaft, Trip hammer. For example, the user keeps deleting Chinese applications for the usage of the crank-and-connecting rod in the pages Crank (mechanism) and Crankshaft, and justifies this by repeatedly quoting Lynn White about how he knew examples about the Chinese 'crank', which is not the same as the crank-and-connecting rod. This author had only 1 example for the Chinese application of the crank and connecting rod in which I quoted to him in the talk page. I showed him a more recent source which provided 21 examples spread over 5 different applications for the Chinese crank-and-connecting-rod, making Lynn Whites statement debunked. Despite this, I offered to keep White's quote in the article as long as I get to add in examples for Chinese usage of the crank-and-connecting rod as the article makes it sound like they made no applications for it (even Lynn White would disagree with that). Instead Gun Powder Ma added in my examples as Chinese usage for the 'crank', which is not the same as crank-and-connecting-rods, and used those examples to quote Lynn White again about how the Chinese didn't covert reciprocal motion to rotary motion (in other words, what a crank and connecting rod does, for a crank by itself only converts rotary motion to rotary motion) here, ignoring that those very examples he put in are examples about Chinese applications for the crank-and-connecting rod, not just the crank as he painted. They would contradict Lynn White's quote if he put them in correctly. Although told that the 'crank' is not the same as the 'crank and connecting rod' repeatedly here, I don't think Gun Powder Ma understands here. I would like to see that more updated sourcing be provided for these articles, in areas that updates the old sourcing. Lastly, I am a newcomer to wikipedia and am only recently aware of the 3RR rule. Please note that every mistake I made regarding the 3RR rule has to do with me being unfamiliar with wiki editing (such as editing a page over and over again to make sure that the source is correctly referenced as I did not know how to reference them correctly previously, though I thought I did), and have nothing to do with edit warring (repeatedly changing other people's edits over the 3 times per day limit). ArchimedesTheInventor 2:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Note that the reported user also reported me for edit warring. He told me to take it to the talk page, yet he himself did not wait for consensus or respond appropriately in the above articles' talk pages before continuing to revert and change the articles.Qiushufang (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ArchimedesTheInventor and Qiushufang have been tagteaming to revert me and the solid scholarly sources I provided. I suspect Sock puppetry and will soon file a report that I can link here if need arises. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Report. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that both accounts are edit-warring against me and User:William M. Connolley at Crankshaft (1) and trip hammer (2). In the latter example Qiushufang violates 3RR. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is 'tag-teaming' you, Gun Powder Ma. You decided to change what I edited in February 2018 before I had any prior interactions with you []. And from reading your edit history, you decided to change Qiushufang's edits before he had any prior interactions with you. Being stubborn with Qiushufang meant you pushed Qiushufang to venture into our own little tango, ergo this is completely self inflicted. I didn't tell Qiushufang to do anything, nor did I change a word in the Trip Hammer article when Qiushufang joined in. So it's funny considering all of that, that you would accuse us as the same person now: []ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When one engages in dishonest and facetious arguments like User:Gun Powder Ma, you don't need sock puppets. I believe this was coming to him no matter what given his editing history and agenda to prove that all things first originated in Europe and the West. He makes fine arguments when it suits him but when confronted, breaks down to non sequiturs and ignores the arguments made by others. See Talk:Trip hammer and Talk:History of gunpowder.Qiushufang (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus it's very misleading for Gun Powder Ma to claim I'm "reverting" the "scholarly sources" already provided. I didn't delete sourcing that already existed, I merely said that there was no academic consensus and gave the viewpoints from other historians which says contrary to the ones already presented. Claims without scholarly consensus should be presented as still up-in-the-air rather than matters of fact. I still left the viewpoints from the old sourcing in the article. The sole exception is Lynn White's claim about the lack of the crank-and-connecting rod in Chinese history, which is outdated and more recent research can just prove such notions as plain out incorrect. Yet even for Lynn White, in the talk page I agreed to allow Lynn White's incorrect statement to remain the article, so long as the more up-to-date evidence are also in the article. Instead Gun Powder Ma completely distorted the sourcing from Needham, presenting Needham's identification of various Chinese crank-and-connecting rod applications as simply examples for applications of the crank (not the same thing), and then putting Lynn White's quote at the end to make it seem as if White's statement is still correct about the lack of Chinese applications for the crank-and-connecting rods( here). Also for those who are checking, Needham's examples for the crank-and-connecting rod are from pages 116-118, not just page 118 (do note that Needham calls the crank as an "eccentric lug" though).
 * On the other hand, Gun Powder Ma had wholesale edited out sourcing from the article to make it sound as if certain claims either have a scholarly consensus, or reached a scholarly consensus, when he knew they did not as shown in the talk page (here). Yet I have to argue with him tooth-and-nail just to add information not present in the article, despite giving relevant quotes and sourcing, yet despite all this he hasn't given an inch for the article is still presenting claims without scholarly consensus as matters of fact. Because when all else fails, he claims "I am still skeptical" as justification (here), rather than sourcing. In which case all he has to say is "I am still skeptical" for everything I say and it'll shut down the addition of anything he don't like. Obviously Gun Powder Ma have a problem when articles display "conjectures as fact" for non-Western achievements, such as here (here), so why is it that when it's the other way around he's deleting sources that shows there's no scholarly consensus for certain claims? Or simply deleting/preventing edits that would show certain outdated 56 year old claims to be factually wrong? ArchimedesTheInventor 12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. User:Gun Powder Ma has a habit of treating speculation as fact for the Western origin of things but does not accept the same or better for a non-Western origin. He reverts others' reversions or changes with the excuse of taking it to the talk page, where he utilizes wilful ignorance and non sequiturs to prevent honest discussion, and proceeds to deadlock the article in whatever he state he wants. Qiushufang (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Example: Here he describes the use of natural fuel by the Chinese as "may" or "possible": but refuses to accept that Lewis himself admits that the Greek wheelbarrow's transfer is "pure speculation" or that he himself notes that he is a minority in the discussion of the wheelbarrow's origin: . As seen here:, so he does even read the source correctly. He just cherry picks whatever suits him, even when his own source contradicts him. Qiushufang (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See above for further details. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The users has started to go after my edits elsewhere, 2. Note that he has never edited this article before, so clearly he is in a hound mood. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You deleted sourced content in your changes to the article here: using "cleanup" as justification. Clearly anybody with two eyes can see that this is not cleanup but deletion and modification of content to suit your own POV. You were also part of a talk page discussion 9 whole years ago regarding the same subject:, so you very well knew what you were doing when you decided to change the overtone tone and content of the article without giving proper notice. Once again you used misleading language to push your agenda that "x was invented in Europe first" no matter what the source actually says. As for your revert, your pattern of not addressing the core issue while resorting to non sequiturs remains unchanged. There was nothing wrong with the sources, as you claimed here: . I had no contention with the sources but rather your deletion of any content which did not suit your own bias. All of which are from the same source. Qiushufang (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You remove contents you do not understand. The long-standing version I defend does not say that the Greeks invented the wheelbarrow. It says, based on a fully scholarly source with page reference, they "may" have invented it and that it "might" have transmitted to China later. This version has been mostly stable for at least nine years until you came today. You are showing a pattern of edit-warring over reliably sourced contents that you have not even read (also here and here). This is not acceptable editing behaviour. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. The stable version you linked to that was immediately reverted by someone else a day later: . Fascinating definition you have of stable. Qiushufang (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I said "at least". The sourced contents you are now trying to alter beyond recognition actually goes back as far as 2008. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you do not even quote yourself properly, you said "at least nine years". Upon further delving into the stable version provided, it was reverted immediately the day after, and then was the subject of an edit war between User:Gun Powder Ma and two other user:, starting here: , who along with  engaged in a talk section with Gun Powder Ma:  on the same subject Gun Powder Ma has decided to unilaterally change once again under the edit summary of "clean up": . Note that User:Khirurg has removed my improvements to the article including giving proper attribution to a blockquote without proper references, the addition of two relevant images, as well as the inclusion of proper quotes and references: . Somewhat ironically, Khirug is convinced I am a sock puppet and has reverted some of my changes on those grounds, despite that I have never proven to be one, or am one. It is ironic because he has a long history of siding with Gun Powder Ma, such as on the above talk section, where he was once known as User:Athenean, 9 years ago.  Qiushufang (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At this point I am only amazed that you even seem to get away with your confrontative behaviour. I think it is pretty obvious to most that you and this other other red link are the one being disruptive here over multiple pages and these walls of texts with accusations are intended to cover that up. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If by confrontative you mean not standing for your nonsensical disingenuous behavior and outright lies then yes, I agree. You change a slew of pages so that western or greek or roman content appears first, regardless of what the source actually says. When confronted, you revert others' edits under the guideline of taking it to the talk page, where you either outright dismiss other opinions or ignore them entirely, and then proceed to continue with your editing. So what is the point of communicating with you in talk when you yourself do not wait for consensus? You take the most minor of sources consisting of speculation such as MJT Lewis and take that for scholarly consensus over several other historians, so long as it fits your bias. Then you attack sources for content of non-western history with gusto and remove them with the exact same double standard you use to keep western sections at the forefront. Qiushufang (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User is pretty close to breaking 3RR over at Wheelbarrow at the moment as well.  Grey joy talk 10:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is concerning how these users are all edit warring with each other across multiple pages, accusing each other of misinterpreting sources. Very strange. It's hard to justify one-sided blocking here. ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is violating 3RR again (see diffs above at Battle of Xiangyang). This is becoming weird, he is on some kind of on a vendetta against me, bringing up stuff from 14 years ago. I don't know what he wants. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted you to resolve the current issues first, which are your reports of me and Archimedes' report of you. Did I not make that clear by my comment on your talk page? Of course I have a vendetta against you when you reported me THREE times and never bothered to reply to any comment on your claim that I was sock puppeting. Qiushufang (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is ridiculous. Pay attention, - if I see any of you follow another to a page you have not edited before, or have not edited for a long time, and revert them, I will block you, and the block will not be short.  If I see any more gaming of the 3RR system, such as currently on Battle of Xiangyang where Quishufang has reverted (yet again) three times, I will also block, and the block will not be short.  If I see any evidence of tag-teaming to win a revert war, I will block both accounts, and the blocks will not be short.  I strongly suggest all of you, especially Qiu and GPM, avoid each other, and keep avoiding each other as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, in my defense, in good faith I haven't edited even a single wiki article ever since the report war started, at most I responded to comments in the talk page. Nor did I "tag team" anybody, Qiu joined my discussion of his own volition, I never contacted him before. I even went that extra step in which once Qiu started editing the Trip Hammer page I was editing, I stopped editing that page completely. I was trying to do the opposite of tag-teaming. At the very most, I warned Qiu that he and I were falsely accused of being the same person by GPM and pointed him to the sock puppet page, that's the closest I went into "tag-teaming". Nor did I join Qiu in any of his edit wars with GPM. I don't think I should be blocked for something I have absolutely no control over. Anyway, previously I kept myself from editing articles, would you say it's OK for me to start editing articles now? Secondly, to be clear. I didn't edit war with Qiushufang, only GPM. So I'm asking just in case, I still can make edits to pages that Qiushufang edited, right? Otherwise the restriction don't make sense for me. ArchimedesTheInventor 16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say that's OK - the main purpose is to get Qiu and GPM to avoid each other - it's the reverting that's the issue, so definitely don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So is User:ArchimedesTheInventor still my sock puppet: ? Qiushufang (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it doesn't matter anyway since, as I said above, if there's any evidence of tag-teaming, there will be blocks. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought of another question, what about articles such as "List of Chinese inventions" page, "Trip Hammer" page, "Crank (mechanism)" page, and "Crankshaft" page, in which both I and Gun Powder Ma had already participated recently? I'm guessing neither of us edits any of those articles nor their respective talk pages from now on? ArchimedesTheInventor 16:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be best, but this is actually simpler than you think - from now, don't revert GPM. Similarly, they and Qiu should not revert each other. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about bombarding you with questions. I do have one last one I am concerned about. Qiushufang have shown that Khirurg who previous used the username Athenian have a history of supporting GPM in his arguments ( here), in which you can see GPM inviting Khirurg to join in on his arguments multiple times. Khirurg participated in this most recent edit war as well, to the point in which when GPM accused me and Qiu as being the same person, Khirurg went into the sock-puppet page and voiced his support of that accusation. Shouldn't Khirurg avoid us and our edit pages, and we avoid him and his edit pages as well? I don't want a situation in which GPM uses Khirurg to wage a proxy war against my future edits ArchimedesTheInventor 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Useless outcome. All you've done is allow User:Gun Powder Ma to continue editing Trip hammer, which User:ArchimedesTheInventor has had significant contributions to years in advance. So is he just supposed to sit in Talk:Trip hammer while GPM ignores him or just say "ah I am skeptical so allow me to continue editing and reverting all your contributions". Why is GPM privileged over past contributions? I edited Battle of Xiangyang months prior while GPM has not for years and he has shown that his additions have been very contentious in the past in the talk page. So if he edits that article, should I just sit back and take it? You say that it is "actually simpler than you think" but all you're saying is to let GPM do whatever he wants. Qiushufang (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Guys, this isn't a sockpuppet investigation page. The report has been finished.  You don't have to go home but ya can't stay here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing Khirurg of sockpuppetry, if that's what you're saying, nor do I think he is one. OK I'm leaving. ArchimedesTheInventor 18:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nico KTM reported by User:ArchonBoi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added some helpful info about the museum motorcycles in depth info for helping people reach more info about it !"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of maintenance tags */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps removing maintenance tags without fixing the underlying issues. I've tried advising them when removal of these is appropriate. ArchonBoi —(Talk) 16:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950089638 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) Revert addition"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950067435 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) Revert addition"
 * 3)  "This is not needed as Hong Kong and Macau are already in chart"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit warring / 3RR:
 * 2) Notification DS as applies to COVID-19:

This issue has already been discussed with implicit reference to this template, per the wording here; whole discussion may be seen at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_28
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I was against reporting until I saw this despicable jab at "mental health" and prior thread here. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:CaradhrasAiguo has a long history of aggressive editing and pro-Chinese propoganda. In this particular edit he is referencing the talk page in which he is the only editor in favour of adding (mainland). He clearly has a very obvious agenda. Gizapink (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Textbook baseless accusation of WP:COI, a repeat of this trope-filled post (working for the Chinese state). The previous slap on the wrist had better be a slamming of the doors / portals. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:CaradhrasAiguo has been warned, warned, and warned. Then blocked, blocked, and blocked. User:CaradhrasAiguo is a repeat offender and has a LONG history of aggressive editing and warring. It's time to slam the door on this problem editor for good. This is editor has an OBVIOUS agenda. Gizapink (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I count the above crap as the third outburst in violation of WP:NPA in the last hour alone. Hardly a good start to one's editing career. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin that Gizapink has been blocked following the ANI discussion. — MarkH21talk 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – Gizapink is already blocked one week by User:Ymblanter for personal attacks per the ANI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Anatomycbmcb reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:17 9 April 2020
 * 2)  "/* History */False citation: do not support the presented       content {no reliable resources}"
 * 3)  "/* History */Not having a proper live citation"
 * 4) 15:12, 10 April 2020


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tablighi Jamaat. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has admitted that they are operating two accounts. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Anatomycbmcb is blocked 72 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. User:Anatomy iggmc has been indef blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hugeshantz reported by User:WmLawson (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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: This editor has repeatedly added content that is a mixture of the editor's opinion, nonneutral, cherry-picked, and represents original research, using noncurrent and nonneutral opinion piece columns and unreliable sources directly against WP:NOR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:NPOV. I've requested the edits be discussed at a few times, but the user continues to post the very same content without discussion or justification.

WmLawson (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Broichmore reported by User:Llammakey (Result: OP warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Nowhere else in the article is the definite article used. Attempts to rectify this had led to this user edit-warring because they believe they are right Llammakey (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * you left all the fields blank. Please add the pertinent diffs. El_C 12:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually not the case Llammakey has a habit of trolling me. Only today he has followed USS Wolverine (IX-64), François d'Orléans, Prince of Joinville, HMS Buzzard, and the Portuguese East India Company the last with no result poor thing, oh and Jan Huyghen van Linschoten. He's spent all day visiting everything I do. I only noticed late today, but when I go back there he is on the 8th of April at USS Martha Washington (ID-3019), Cosulich Line, Bombardment of Casablanca (1907) etc etc... persecuting me. Broichmore (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ., please don't follow Broichmore around from article to article. That is hounding, which is not allowed. El_C 13:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Vallabharebejnd reported by User:Blue Square Thing (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950301469 by Blue Square Thing (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950297429 by Blue Square Thing (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950288969 by Spike 'em (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Squad */"
 * 1)  "/* Squad */"
 * 1)  "/* Squad */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pune Warriors India. (TW)"

The warnings above all attempt to engage the user.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Multiple reverts - also on other related pages. Possible link to blocked User:Iloveuou as well. Refusing to engage as well and has created a bunch of random articles as well - the talk page is littered with warnings etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User seems to be a sock of and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noted a number of other diffs on a range of articles on the user's talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:81.96.197.232 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned about unexplained content removal, hasn't joined the discussion here at the talk page, and otherwise unresponsive. 3RR violation. — MarkH21talk 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. Unexplained removal of sourced content by IPs, for instance here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Illuminaati reported by User:Teishin (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note:

1. The disputed content also appears at Gautama_Buddha. This has been discussed on the Talk page and that discussion of the issue should appear at Gautama_Buddha. was asked to take the dispute there. removed the content from Gautama_Buddha [] and the removal was reverted ] there on 20 March. There was no discussion of the matter at Talk:Gautama_Buddha and no further edit warring.

2. There are similarities with the current issue and one from 2017 Talk:Shakya also involving. This required mediation and resulted in being blocked for 1 week, warned about operating sockpuppets, and warned about accusing editors of bad faith edits. See User_talk:Illuminaati.

Teishin (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 days, due to a two-person edit war between User:Teishin and User:Illuminaati. Beware of continuing the war after protection expires. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The edit summaries of User:Illuminaati are getting close to personal attacks. See a DRN from 2017 for prior discussion about Shakya. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael0986 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: one week, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff "Not vandalism at all, just common sense. Why the big deal over a release date?"
 * 4) diff "You're the one being disruptive and throwing your weight around."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Myself discussing on the users talk page. and again on the films talk page here.

Comments:

I'm giving the user a benefit of the doubt of being new but they have been adding information with sources that WP:FILM does not allow and I've attempted to explain to the user some basic Wiki rules WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. The user seems to be aware of the talk page messages, as they deleted my previous statement about genre warring. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:EditQwerty reported by User:DrKay (Result: one week, partial — Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

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 talk page:

Comments:


 * Comment: I was about to warn User:EditQwerty about this myself. I was also considering a full protection of the article to stop the edit warring. But just now I saw that EditQwerty self-reverted their latest controversial addition of "Queen" to the article, so maybe they have gotten the message. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did we edit conflict? Or did you already take into account that they self-reverted their most recent addition? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Missed that. Unblocked with apologies. El_C 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:8805:1400:4CE0:F947:35AC:26CD:3D77 reported by User:Scaledish (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Adult swim. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Can someone please do a 3RR report on User:2600:8805:1400:4ce0:f947:35ac:26cd:3d77 */"
 * 2)   "/* Adult Swim You need to stop right now!  */ new section"


 * Comments:

The user did not revert edits, instead added irrelevant edits after 3 times we reverted it. the user was also warned without twinkle. see the edit history of adult swim and user talk page. Scaledish ! Talkish ? Statish. 19:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Beatleswillneverdie reported by User:Whpq (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950359832 by Elmidae (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added more references."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950013703 by Whpq (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Even in His Youth. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Talkback (User talk:Whpq) (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "provide source analysis"


 * Comments:

Editor is aware of 3RR warning and note about source analysis indicating lack of notability of the song. More than one editor has placed a redirect for this song but Beatleswillneverdie just reverts without engaging in actual discussion. Whpq (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

. You need four reverts in the span of 24 hours in order to violate 3RR. El_C 07:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Rangsagar reported by User:GSS (Result: one week, partial sitewide)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop your edit warring. I am adding factual information."
 * 2)  "Motti is entrepreneur."
 * 3)  "I addressed notability issues."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tiziano Motti. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Paid editing without disclosure under the Wikimedia Terms of Use. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tiziano Motti. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

SPA possible undisclosed paid editor only here to remove the UPE tag from the page. No reply to warnings. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 07:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Block changed to sitewide due to harassment. El_C 11:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User: Elkrivermr and User: ElSnakeoBwb reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Article protected, both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) etc. basically the recent history of the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:: No such attempt was undertaken. I was not involved and prefer not to get involved.

Comments:

Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

user:Elkrivermr/Elkriver This is the source for the changes made:

https://murderpedia.org/male.L/l1/lundgren-jeffrey-don.htm

"Lundgren and about two dozen followers had broken away from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,"

changes were appropriate and correct, cease the edit war immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkrivermr (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please lock the article. The source definitely needs discussion. And the editors need a reminder/a warning that being right - unless it is obvious vandalism - is not an excuse for an edit war.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Article protected for a week. That should be plenty of time for both editors to sort out the issue.  If either of you continue to edit-war after the protection expires, you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Zoglophie reported by User:Stvbastian (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950618622 by Stvbastian (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950528921 by Stvbastian (talk)check in which country cheng shao chieh lives. See Chou Tien-chen i haven't edited there She represents Chinese Taipei and her nationality is ROC / Taiwan."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The article already looks good without flagicon in the infobox, and not linking anchor to the same target in one line (Republic of China and Taiwan to the same target) per MOS:REPEATLINK and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but User:Zoglophie made edits without referring to Wikipead's rules, and when i reverted the edits, user two times reverted again my edits and made editing just based on other articles that are not necessarily according to Wikipedia's rules (see: User talk:Stvbastian. And, please check user contribution history especially in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu page. User did multiple 'publish changes' in one article. Especially, with behavior by deleting then publish, blanking then publish, adding content then publish, replace content then publish in one article section at adjacent times. Stvbastian (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:586:C401:C750:8530:F05E:CD04:B91B reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 08:41
 * 2) 08:04
 * 3) 04:12
 * 4) 03:51

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They are using a dynamic IP:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They've deleted it twice now. []

Comments:

This has been ongoing since mid-March. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 09:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (partial on the article only) for 1 week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Vitalii Moshkivskyi reported by User:Smeagol 17 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Modern Feodosiya */ addition of Russian annexation in 2014 - major event in the history of Modern Feodosiya"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950365295 by Smeagol 17 (talk) there is nothing about russian rule, so.."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950364746 by Smeagol 17 (talk) nothing to discuss"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 950363968 by Smeagol 17 (talk) there is nothing about russian rule, so.."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 939723623 by Smeagol 17 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Feodosia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He also engages in similar behavior on Kerch and Sevastopol, and also Yevpatoria and Yalta pages. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Vitalii Moshkivskyi's last edit to Yalta was 09:08, 25 January 2020‎ (UTC).  His/her last edit to Yevpatoria was 09:08, 25 January 2020‎.  Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not mean edit waring in the later two cases. Just that he copy-pasted this section there too. (Sorry if it was misleading) Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You were both edit warring. You are just more experienced at winning edit wars than he/she is.
 * 08:55, 8 February 2020 Smeagol 17 reverts Vitalii Moshkivskyi
 * 18:06, 11 April 2020 Smeagol 17 reverts Vitalii Moshkivskyi
 * 18:11, 11 April 2020 Smeagol 17 reverts Vitalii Moshkivskyi
 * 18:15, 11 April 2020 Smeagol 17 reverts Vitalii Moshkivskyi
 * Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your compliment, but I did not violate 3RR, did I? And his edits stand for now. I even | reminded him of 3RR before it got this far. Regardless, this is the first time in my 12 year history here that I filed a 3RR complaint. I just want the articles mentioned to be without those copy-pasted sections that do not even make a mention of the town in question. If I came to the wrong place, I apologise. But my oponent does not engage despite my repeated requests to do so. (Also, it is "he", judging by his name.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Special:Contributions/Vitalii_Moshkivskyi. The reason for the block is entirely correct.  Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for information. So. Is this inquiry closed? Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – Per WP:NOTHERE by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Brahma gyan18 reported by User:Shanze1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950702162 by Shanze1 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950701538 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950698538 by Shanze1 (talk)"
 * 4) 11:42, 13 April 2020

12:08, 13 April 2020
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The editor was also warned in the talk page. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanze1 (talk • contribs)
 * Comments:
 * The diff 4 above is a repeat of the editor's previous edit-warring episode for which he received 3RR block. He repeated the same edit without any discussion, and proceeded to edit-war on new content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor has now self-reverted his last attempt. But there is still no effort to engage. Perhaps a warning will help. --- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (arbitration enforcement)  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:188.223.78.215 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverting content to factually accurate comment after being removed without valid reason."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950736754 by Rbstrachan (talk) I......DID. Piss off"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950735782 by Driverofknowledge (talk) Reverting Vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 950732631 by Woerich (talk) I DID give an incredibly detailed and factually valid reason. It's FACTUALLY FALSE troll garbage. The End."
 * 5)  "Just because biased, slanderous, factually incorrect comments can be "sourced" doesn't make them remotely valid on a personal Wikipedia page. Anyone can "source" someone saying George Clooney is a talentless actor who killed 5 people. Slander/factually wrong OPINION does not qualify for someone's "Legacy" section."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vince Russo. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 *  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hugeshantz reported by User:WmLawson (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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: This editor has repeatedly added content that is a mixture of the editor's opinion, nonneutral, cherry-picked, and represents original research, using noncurrent and nonneutral opinion piece columns and unreliable sources directly against WP:NOR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:NPOV. I've requested the edits be discussed at a few times, but the user continues to post the very same content without discussion or justification.

WmLawson (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts over multiple months don't demonstrate edit-warring, but both of you need to use the talk page to engage more and edit the page less.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Aarmeen123 reported by User:GSS (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have removed the unsourced information, the rest are sourced"
 * 2)  "/* Higher Education */"
 * 3)  "This version has enough references to be accepted. Please discuss its flaws but please don't revert it."
 * 1)  "This version has enough references to be accepted. Please discuss its flaws but please don't revert it."
 * 1)  "This version has enough references to be accepted. Please discuss its flaws but please don't revert it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ahmad Massoud. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

SPA only here to promote Ahmad Massoud, constantly adding unsourced/poorly sourced promotional material and not responding to warnings. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know which information is not sourced in this article and which sources are weak. All of the references are credible and I have even provided a book that verifies the information in the page. Please recheck all the information in the last edits that I made and you will see that nothing is unsourced. I am not promoting anyone here, I am simply expanding an article that you have been done so a while back. Aarmeen123 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I comment on your promotional edits, I would like to know If you know the subject personally or have been paid to create the article? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Mattximus (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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

User Bluesatellite has frequently reverted any changes to the page List of largest cities and acts as if he is the sole owner of this page. Specifically, he immediately reverts any changes that he does not approve. He frequently justifies this by saying how much effort he put into this article (see talk page). This is the second 3R violation of his, the first I did not report, but now the behaviour is chronic. I attempted numerous times to seek input from others on the talk page, but he insists on reverting everything that's not approved by him before discussions can take place. I've never done this before, but I do believe this is an important page to wikipedia, and deserves to be more collaborative in nature. Specific revert in question is my use of UN urban area populations, versus his use of Demographia (a website run by Wendell Cox) urban area populations. I argue the UN is a better source than non-peer reviewed websites. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This Mattximus make a bold and disputed change without consensus. I simply revert back to the stable version, and he insist on his own version. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's only disputed by you? That's the issue, we need to discuss first, with other users. But you immediately revert. This is the second time you did this in the past little while, breaking the 3R rule on two separate occasions. You can't own this page. That's why I posted this. Mattximus (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * we need to discuss first, with other users --> that's right! That's what I'm doing! You haven't got any consensus, but keep insisting on your bold edit. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:71.174.129.190 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Simple question - Do you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia. who died and whose kingdom was then split into 4 parts?"
 * 2)  "Do you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia? A simple question! - and I know you pissants are conspiring to get me banned - it is normal wikipedia pissant behavior."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 951008495 by Tgeorgescu (talk) do you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 951002246 by Epinoia (talk) if history has another Greek king that conquered Persia please let me know"
 * 5)  "/* Vision of the ram and goat (chapter 8) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Daniel. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Start has a problem and is one sided */ WP:CHOPSY"
 * 2)   "/* Start has a problem and is one sided */ typo"


 * Comments:

For the record I offered to quit

If you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia then let me know and I will stop with that addition.71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you know of another Greek king that conquered Persia then let me know and I will stop with that addition.71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I keep asking if there is more than 1 Greek king that conquered Persia and upon his death his kingdom was split into 4 smaller and less powerful kingdoms! So far no one has an answer! Would you like to take a shot at an answer? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

and also for the record - anyone that purports to know of another such king is a bit lacking in historical knowledge. Just a bit!71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Again offered to stop

If someone can find another Greek king that conquered Persia - then I will stop stating that the Greek king that conquered Persia was Alexander! If you can't answer then it is YOU who has a problem!71.174.129.190 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:2001:8F8:1D3D:C79:0:0:903D:D301 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950965752 by Amaury (talk) this isn't talk page stuff, it's simple English"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950965100 by Magitroopa (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 950964943 by Amaury (talk)all valid"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 950961632 by Magitroopa (talk)yes they really are"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 950961255 by Magitroopa (talk)the article is a mess. Riddled with basic grammatical errors."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 950960786 by Magitroopa (talk)ridiculous"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950960786 by Magitroopa (talk)ridiculous"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Danger Force. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Clear case of edit warring and WP:DE at this point. Refuses to follow proper procedures. Amaury • 19:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, even better. This is block evasion by our LTA sock Orchomen. See Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen. IP geolocates to the UAE. Amaury • 20:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep – an edit summary with "Riddled with basic grammatical errors." pretty screams Orchomen. Unfortunately, Bbb23 has basically quit Checkuser, so I'm not sure anyone around here will be able to perform the check. But if it's Orchomen, a longer-term IP rangeblock is likely in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely no doubt now it's Orchomen. Besides geolocating to the UAE, they've gone to their famous "Amaury is not here" line. Amaury • 20:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at . Like I said, this will need a rangeblock. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * has range blocked that range for two days, but two years might be more appropriate given the long-term abuse here like BU Rob13 was doing before he left. All the same, Zzuuzz, thanks for the block. It's appreciated regardless. Amaury • 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Ad Orientem. Contact User:Zzuuzz if you think a longer block of Special:Contributions/2001:8f8:1000::/36 is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Bornwenty1992 reported by User:JamesHSmith6789 (Result: one week, partial)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 951113380 by JamesHSmith6789 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 951112818 by WikiDan61 (talk) I believe this page is being censored."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 951101285 by Yamla (talk)—citation added."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

(copied from user's talk page)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

even after multiple warnings JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 15:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict, not requesting additional action) I believe this counts as a revert, too. It's reintroducing prior content, albeit with a wording change. --Yamla (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hari147 reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

I would like to mention that the content added is racially targeted, without doubt defamative, and proves to harness racism against Indians and the Hindu community. The issue is stemmed probably from Hindu-muslim tensions in India and as a result, targeted religious defamation is prevalent, on both sides. I suggest this issue be resolved in a biased manner with both the community users reached out and discussed. As for me, i find this article appalling and completely derogatory. Furthermore, using multiple accounts (which i suspect are from the same user), does not prove it to be valid. Thank you and these are my comments on this. --Hari147 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've partially blocked from editing that article. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

331dot Wow.. despite what i have said you have proceeded to block me and ban me. No wonder your country is number 1 in corona virus cases and deaths. Well good for you and i hope its not the end of it as well. Hari147 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not banned, only blocked, and only from that article. I've told you how you can be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "No wonder your country is number 1 in corona virus cases and deaths. Well good for you and i hope its not the end of it as well." I hope this does not mean what I think it means. --MrClog (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Intelliname reported by User:Woerich (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As per my prior notations, this thread contains information that was intentionally produced, curated, and published in a concerted effort to harm an organization intentionally so that the value of this placement could be positioned nationally in support of targeted media concentration as part of a TI program. One of the gatekeepers is literally called GorillaWarfare. My recommendation again is to cease and desist your activities before their root benefitee is exposed into the light."
 * 2)  "Now as your team members converge, you are revealing the participation levels of the orchestration against Epik Holdings, Inc. in a public format. You are welcome to email me for the coming change citations being made, but we would rather not have to publish them in the open clear. Especially with the degree of accountability and exposure happening due to global issues."
 * 3)  "We have already confirmed that the original posting actions of the unverified comments and paid actors who wrote the pieces were not only invalid, but part of an orchestrated effort against Epik due to their progress in designing a full stack technology service to enhance server resiliency. If you progress your true nature and allegiances will be published. Please be kind here."
 * 4)  "Epik was the victim of a coordinated attack to conflate purchase of server resiliency tools as support for racism. The containment has been largely reversed, including restoration of Facebook and other article redactions and public apologies. They just won Best Registrar of 2020. A group wanting media exposure targeted them to maximize media exposure. The same precedent elsewhere, every shooter that announced intentions on social media would see those tech suppliers branded the same."
 * 5)  "Epik was the victim of a coordinated attack to conflate purchase of server resiliency tools as support for racism. The containment has been largely reversed, including restoration of Facebook and other article redactions and public apologies. They just won Best Registrar of 2020. A group wanting media exposure targeted them to maximize media exposure. The same precedent elsewhere, every shooter that announced intentions on social media would see those tech suppliers branded the same."
 * 6)  "Restoring basic information per prior adjustment justification. Historical summary under preparation per legal guidance as third party review and re-orientation source. OpSec70."
 * 1)  "Restoring basic information per prior adjustment justification. Historical summary under preparation per legal guidance as third party review and re-orientation source. OpSec70."
 * 1)  "Restoring basic information per prior adjustment justification. Historical summary under preparation per legal guidance as third party review and re-orientation source. OpSec70."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Epik (domain registrar). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Epik (domain registrar). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Appears to be a single purpose account committed to whitewashing this article.  Woerich   (talk)   18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Intelliname Input - I would hope that anyone reviewing this will see the concentrated bias. As major donors to Wikipedia through voluntary contributions, this is one of the singular worst abuses of power and position I have personally witnessed. This account was in fact set up by our Public Relations agency to handle and address this specific abuse report. I have offered to provide privately the notations of the editors hired, who have begun redacting and removing their content, on the basis of their specific handlers being exposed earlier in 2020. The basis of Woeric's argument is that I need to be providing citations, that in part would cause potentially massive or grave damage both publicly and legally to those individuals who had initially targeted Epik. Our world is facing so many real challenges, that the demonstration of this type of effort and actions due to support and drive external narrative points should not be allowed to happen. It is grotesque and the clearest example of how a small number of pre-positioning sources and be used without regard to harm and destroy others for financial gain. Shame on you.
 * I had blocked based on an ANI report. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:Augend (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 951354779 by Augend (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 951351479 by Augend (talk) Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Several warnings given (see entries 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 on his talkpage; not all discuss edit warring but all of them discuss improper conduct) - several reverts of clearly functional edits designed to make the article more neutral on a contentious topic - Taiwan/Chinese Taipei. Augend (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is just silly and very obviously not an edit war. Can we get a WP:PA block? "your own racism is not an acceptable reason to undo edits designed to neutralize pages” and "please state why those actions constitute vandalism... your own racism isn't a valid response.”. Seems to meet the WP:Boomerang criteria. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh they’ve done it again "Racism is clearly what is behind your reverts.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * neither violated 3RR nor was warned about it in advance of this case. I'm closing it as no violation. The matter of 's conduct is outside the scope of this noticeboard; however, he appears to be willing to tone down his references to other users. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

User: Stvbastian reported by User: Zoglophie (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Comment : Some error happening, 2 links are not directing towards the reported user's edits, so i request you to go through the edits in revision history of Tai Tzu-ying and Cheng Shap-chieh)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950528921 by Zoglophie (talk
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950528767 by Zoglophie (talk


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user actually need to read rules in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. This user don't know the difference between Nationality and Country's Representation. Both these things can be same but in case of Taiwan/ROC/Chinese Taipei, Players represent "Chinese Taipei" internationally where their Nationality remains "Taiwanese".User talk:Stvbastian. See infobox is meant for information regarding players and in the Country bar, Appropriate use of National Flag is permitted as per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. As per rules, Chou Tien-chen, Wang Chi-lin, Pai Yu-po etc. already had Taiwan's flag in his personal infobox, where i haven't performed any edit. And it is totally correct to put Taiwan's flag as nationality. I hope this helps. In case of Saina Nehwal & P. V. Sindhu, i have transformed both of these articles in a very good one by adding lots of necessary citations and career details. See my edits in those articles and see the article too. I hope User:Fylindfotberserk agrees with me. Both of us have contributed well to those articles. Thankyou

(Edit:I have fixed the repeatlink problem that Stvbastian was telling, i am still relevant to what edit i made in Tai Tzu-ying and Cheng Shao-chieh earlier which is under rules i.e. Addition of flagicon to Both these articles to distinguish between nationality and international sports representation).

Zoglophie (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that editor's conduct looks familiar. If you'd said it was I would not have been surprised. Guy (help!) 09:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy (help!) : I'm glad finally someone intervened, please continue the discussion. Zoglophie (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy, please check Cheng Shao-chieh and Tai Tzu-ying revision history. After Zoglophie confidently did 2 reverts for my edits, finally, Zoglophie him/herself reverted for the 3rd time for his/her own mistakes that he/she made. (see also: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Stvbastian (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please refer (Edit) to my statement here just after i made the Edit, Stvbastian. And, main thing is that Flag nees to be inserted. Even some Taiwanese players have already overlinking problem which is secondary to the Main dispute. Guy (help!) Zoglophie (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Both Zoglophie and Stvbastian are warned. This has been a war about inclusion of the Taiwan flag in the infobox. Either of these editors may be blocked if they make a revert of the infobox of any athlete with a connection to Taiwan unless they have obtained prior consensus for their change on some talk page, for example, in a WP:Request for comments. The issue seems confusing and needs a proper discussion, leading to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SimonThinksWiki reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Face masks during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Face masks during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Not counting the first replacement of the image, as this editor reverted 3 times, so is now at 6RR  Doug Weller  talk 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

d

User:Debresser reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Caution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950688157 by SharabSalam (talk) No serious objections have been raised on the talkpage."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 950602754 by Huldra (talk) I reverted this before. The same reasons still apply."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Battir. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This editor is trying to implement a change in the longstanding wording through editwarring (WP:QUO and WP:BRD). The editor waited 24 hours to revert, trying to game the 1 revert rule restriction. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that WP:BRD, which I followed at User_talk:Huldra and Talk:Battir, is not edit warring. This is basically a content dispute, in which some editors for unclear, but probably POV-related reasons, try to defend an inferior version. I have discussed this on the talkpage, and the only argument against the edit was WP:CHERRYPICKING, which I think is not relevant, rather trumped up for lack of any argument whatsoever. So per lack of serious arguments against, and in view of the clear reasons I provided to make this edit, I repeated it. I think that the only reason to report me here is, again, to cover up the lack of any serious or policy-related argument against my obvious improvement. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, I had no idea how much time precisely had elapsed since my last revert. I just waited to see what arguments would come up, and when none came up, and I was confident that significantly more than 24 hours had elapsed, I just made the edit. I had a busy day, and in my relative sense of time, a lot more than 24 hours had elapsed. Had I know that it was only just over 24 hours, I might have waited. But again, the 24 hour argument is not the issue here, rather was trumped up to cover the fact that there is simply no reason not to make the edit. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you reverted without making any new comment in the talk page. The last comment was from the other editor. I reverted you, and said to you that you should seek consensus in the talk page. The other editor added a comment yesterday, you didn't even make a comment at that time. You waited until this time and made a comment and reverted at the same time. This is typical editwarring behaviour. Also, your accusation of bias is also not helpful.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Debresser, whilst you are not (technically) breaking the 1RR/24h restriction, I'm not sure exactly how you can claim that re-inserting the disputed material not once but twice is following WP:BRD?  In the first case, you reverted before even posting on the talkpage.  There was one objection to your edit (it's not a busy page), and then you reverted again? Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please notice that my first revert, was in fact a revert of a revert, as the preceding edit repeated one that was undone earlier. Then I opened a discussion, which yielded no serious arguments, just a trumped up and unsubstantiated WP:CHERRYPICKING claim. Please also notice User_talk:Huldra, where a more active discussion took place before today's revert. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , please also note he might be following precedent, as set forth in Israeli settlements. We don't want people to assume Wikipedia is biased. When we have annexation language for Golan Heights, for example, it makes sense to have it for Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, such as Battir, even if it wasn't recognized by many countries. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not suggesting that one version is more valid than the other, merely pointing out that a revert-of-a-revert is still a revert (if that makes sense). I don't think we'd even be here had Debresser not reverted a second time without further discussion. Black Kite (talk)
 * Except that Debresser did engage at the talkpage. Huldra reverted, as you said, it was a revert of a revert. BRD means discuss, not stonewall. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did engage (after reverting, not before) and Huldra also engaged. It is the second revert (of a different editor) that is the issue. I don't think there are grounds for any sanctions here, but Debresser does need to be careful when skirting the restrictions - he even admits that he waited over 24 hours so as not to technically infringe. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not "skirting" that is basic editing in the WP:ARBPIA area. Again, I was sure a lot more than 24 hours had passed. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why Debresser keeps describing our arguments/edits "inferior", he has said it twice in less than 35 mins. He said above some editors for unclear, but probably POV-related reasons, try to defend an inferior version and on the talk page he said No serious arguments have been brought forth, so why should I restore some old version that is clearly inferior? are we having an anatomy class here?-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clear things up, I wouldn't say my argument is "superior". I would say my argument is reasonable. All relevant sources that I have found say "Jordanian rule" so we should say "Jordanian rule".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand the issue, in 1948, Jordan ruled Battir and in 1950 they annexed it. Isn't that factual? So what is the concern with putting that in the article? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not take the content dispute here. there is an Rfc now as well at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how come we have a whole article about the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank? Debresser (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not take the content dispute here and then next comment makes content dispute argument. There is currently a RfC. You have to self-revert to the long-standing version. The fact that you are trying to enforce the version that you want without discussing shows that you are editwarring here.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that sanctions may not be necessary here. But one thing is completely clear: this has got to stop. , this is your third appearance at this board in as many months, and you seem to have an extensive block log going back more than ten years. If in the heat of the moment you re-reverted an edit instead of discussing it, why do you not just say "yes, sorry, I shouldn't have reverted", self-revert the offending edit, and start discussing? The nit-picking above over the rights and wrongs of various edits is completely out of place – what's under consideration here is not the content dispute but the behaviour of the editors, and yours unfortunately seems to be unduly combative. Are you prepared to voluntarily do something about that? If so, what? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my comments above. The only combative attitude I see is from the reporting editor, who seems to be willing to use any and all means to stop me from making a perfectly good edit. I am sorry you will probably feel otherwise, but unfortunately your reference to my block log makes me pretty sure, that your opinion about me is already made up. No problem with that, and I readily admit that in some cases my behavior has been less than ideal, but in this case, I will not agree with your assessment of the situation. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is another revert from yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/951137434?diffmode=source
 * I am not trying to stop Debresser from "making a perfectly good edit". All I am saying is this: normally editors should seek consensus for their change. The long standing version should be implemented during the discussion/RfC etc. Otherwise, the discussions wouldn't have any value.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a majority of editors who agree with this edit, from all sides of the ARBPIA conflict. Not to mention that it is now sourced, and removing sourced information is being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing. I think we're going round in circles now.  However, all editors are reminded that skirting or gaming the AC restrictions, or failing to follow BRD, may see them sanctioned if it happens on a regular basis. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , look at the latest and the new revert from minutes ago with the summary:There is clearly a consensus for this. Nishidani is back to being disruptive and should probably go back to being a retired editor.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , before you close: I'm of the opinion that if is not prepared to make any commitment or attempt to refrain from any further edit-warring or combative behaviour, then others will have to impose conditions on his editing. I'm not sure what those conditions should be, but am thinking along the lines of a one revert per day or one revert per week revert limit. As I said above, I don't think this can be allowed to continue – the poor behaviour of one editor should not be allowed to take up so much of the time of the rest of us. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse you? The poor behavior of one editor? I think there is enough blame to go around for other editors as well. For unclear reasons you are completely ignoring the fact that the other editors involved trumped up ridiculous arguments, in the end removing sourced information which is a bog no-no on Wikipedia. As well as the fact that all of us have a history which is a common history. So you can not simply single me out here. In addition, you can see the talkpage discussion, and convince yourself that I am being very reasonable about all this. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect if you're considering an arbitration sanction, the place to go would be WP:AE? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

User:122.105.21.73 reported by User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 951681762 by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 951681268 by TheImaCow (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 951679745 by Mopswade (talk)"
 * 4)  "Once again, this information is not correct, and there is no evidence to support this information. This is all fake."
 * 5)  "/* Misconduct findings */  The information is false, and is incorrect, these allegations are untrue."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Natalie Suleyman. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps on removing the largest section of the article, even though its cited by various sources, and censors stuff, calling it false RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Callanecc for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7D:B8F:AF00:95D1:E20B:F94F:7829 reported by User:RyTellyFan91 (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * You failed to provide diffs. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 46.121.64.90 (Result: Malformed)
Long series of reverts on many pages, probably multiple edit wars, apparently Israel-Palestine oriented. Not sure what to do. GPinkerton (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for all his/her edits, but from the articles I watch, his/her edits seem constructive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C 07:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:94.204.65.70 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Talk:Can you explain why? Just search on google. If I were you I would search on google immediately, instead of reverting again and again. Edit: reverted correct information"
 * 2)  "Talk:Could you explain why did you keep reverting? Stop reverting and search on google Edit: reverted correct information"
 * 3)  "Stop reverting it again and again just google it"
 * 4)  "Talk:STOP REVERTING, YOU'RE MAKING THE CORRECT INFORMATION INCORRECT. Edit: Restored correct information."
 * 5)  "STOP REVERTING IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. As I said,you’re making the correct information incorrect. Please stop it."
 * 6)  "Talk:Please stop reverting it again and again. You’re making the correct information incorrect. Reverted chart and information."
 * 7)  "Reverted chart,and reverted typo change."
 * 8)  "Reverted typo change"
 * 9)  "Reverted chart."
 * 10)  "Fixed mistake when reverting."
 * 11)  "It doesn’t mean that if it’s not a building it does not belong here. Burj khalifa is also a tower,tower are a type of building"
 * 12)  "Fixed chart error."
 * 1)  "Reverted typo change"
 * 2)  "Reverted chart."
 * 3)  "Fixed mistake when reverting."
 * 4)  "It doesn’t mean that if it’s not a building it does not belong here. Burj khalifa is also a tower,tower are a type of building"
 * 5)  "Fixed chart error."
 * 1)  "It doesn’t mean that if it’s not a building it does not belong here. Burj khalifa is also a tower,tower are a type of building"
 * 2)  "Fixed chart error."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This IP editor is clearly edit warring and unwilling to take advice about proper Wikipedia procedure. Please block. Post the initial notification and a further comment I left on the IP editors talk page they have continued to edit war and be disruptive. I suggest a longer than normal block so they have significant time to reflect on Wikipedia policy which has already been referenced to them in previous posts on their talk page. Robynthehode (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by . EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Qiushufang reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to:
 * 1) pre-edit war version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Qiushufang resumes edit-warring (rewriting the Greek section and pushing on top the section on China) despite warning from. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So this brings up another thing I asked before, are we allowed to revert Khirurg and vice versa? I actually proposed that Khirugg should be added to those we avoid and and he us, but this proposal wasn't responded to by the time everybody got locked out ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that even matter? Khirurg did not revert to me but we both reverted to the last stable version, that of Elwoz (1, 2). When going against this version Qiushufang has already broken 3RR on 8th April, as pointed out by someone else. He did not even go to talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point it should be mentioned that the evidence is rising that Qiushufang's has massively violated copyrights on Commons, with the proven cases going into the dozens and suspected cases going into the many hundred images. Since the majority of his edits here have been concerned with including these copyvios into the articles, his account is not only disruptive but must also be considered a lawbreaking enterprise. He is clearly a liability to the reputation of the encyclopedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Does the editing here violate any restrictions or prior warnings that might have been given? See User:Qiushufang, User:Gun Powder Ma and User:ArchimedesTheInventor (Result: All warned), a report from April 8. Both User:Swarm and User:Black Kite commented then. The articles in dispute back then were Matchlock, Crank (mechanism) and Trip hammer. Speaking of the current dispute at Wheelbarrow, there is nothing on the talk page about it. You will notice much more dispute among some of these editors at Sockpuppet investigations/Qiushufang. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Biainili reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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: and

Comments:

The reported editor keeps edit warring on several Armenia-related articles, they refuse to discuss on articles' talk pages, misuse what the cited sources say and simply reinstate their version. Administrators' intervention is needed. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Said "user" also instantly removed the 3RR and AA2 warnings left on their talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Their most recent revert to Satrapy of Armenia actually rolls that article back to its condition before their first edit of today—in other words, that one is a self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's another article, they made 4 straight reverts of two different users on Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All of which were made before the warning for 3RR was given. They have not reverted that article since. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. However, this editor has provoqued significant cross-articles disruption and violated the 3RR policy. That said, it's not my call but yours to decide if a block is relevant or not. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * However, they have not violated 3RR since receiving the warning about 3RR. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. They have acknowledged the warning (de facto by removing it), and they have abided by it. Thus, I see no reason to punish the user by restricting editing privileges. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User is abiding by 3RR since receiving notice of it. Obviously, report immediately in the event of future violations, since they've acknowledged the rule. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Biainili (Result: No violation)

 * I see that old members trying to prevent new users from contributing to Wikipedia, while Wikipedia's policy is: "edit by anyone at any time", by attempting to get the users, they disagree with, banned. Following users: LouisAragon, HistoryofIran don't respect "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

Page: Tigranes the Great

User being reported: HistoryofIran

HistoryofIran is constantly vandalizing Armenian(also Georgian) related pages with random sources, purely for nationalistic reasons, here is an example of him doing that:

See Also: Users HistoryofIran and LouisAragon discussing on their talk pages how to vandalize Armenian and Georgian pages:


 * 

Page:

HistoryofIran is claiming that Zoroastrianism is the religion of Tigranes the Great, but his references mention religion of Tiridates I only, no mention of supposedly religion of Tigranes the Great whatsoever, as you can see I stated several times that sources were for another person therefore cannot be used as reference for supposedly religion of Tigranes the Great, after removing the sources with a legitimate explanation: Kansas Bear immediately reverted my edits, and posted several warnings on my Talk page, then HistoryofIran after ignoring the fact that sources were wrong each time, somehow decided to remove them today:
 * 
 * Biainili (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hmzawan6 reported by User:Saqib (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Champions With Waqar Zaka */"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */"
 * 3)  "/* Original and authorized edits of Waqar Zaka */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life or waqar zaka*/"
 * 5)  "/* Controversies removed because it won't happen */"
 * 1)  "/* Early life or waqar zaka*/"
 * 2)  "/* Controversies removed because it won't happen */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Paid editing without disclosure under the Wikimedia Terms of Use on Waqar Zaka. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

A sleeper account created last year, now activated and making unconstructive paid edits to a protected BLP. The user claims to on his user-page that he's a Digital Marketer and do brand promotion and SEO.

The user has been removing information on Waqar Zaka that is properly cited via credible RS and instead adding promotional material using unreliable sources.

The user claim here that he has done a lot edits on Wikipedia - however when the account just began making edits today. Saqib (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Saqib Please stop sending me again and again false allegations and messages as I know that you're in power with your account and I also know that you're taking money from agents here in Pakistan for approving their Wikipedia accounts and yes I know these all thing because as I told you that I live in Pakistan and having PR in the digital field so a lot of politicians told me that. Hmzawan6 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes and am accepting this that I've done some changes on Wakar Zaka's page because as Saqib told you that he has done all thing correctly there but the thing is that some things and categories aren't done there correctly and some are unfalse date and I personally know Waqar Zaka and this is the reason I have all of his personal and professional details and this is the reason I am doing this on his behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmzawan6 (talk • contribs)
 * Taking money from agents in Pakistan for approving their Wikipedia accounts... What does that means? Since you've now confirmed that you personally know Waqar Zaka and that he instructed you to edit Wikipedia bio on his behest. Please take a moment to read WP:COI which clearly advise to not edit Wikipedia in the interests of your external relationships. --Saqib (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Waqar Zaka is a BLP article and it needs to be protected from badly sourced material, whether positive or negative. Starting in February, 2020 there have been some new edits that cause concern, often by people who are not very experienced on Wikipedia (and usually have fewer than 100 edits). This complaint mentions COI editing but it could just be excessive enthusiasm from a set of fans, some of whom might be in contact with one another or with the article subject. I see a case for WP:Extended confirmed protection for two months. This could be enacted under WP:ARBBLP if people think regular admin authority is not sufficient. For background, you should see a complaint at Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Saqlain Malik filed by User:Saqib which includes a mention of User:Hmzawan6, the subject of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also take into account that User:Hmzawan6 is removing messages, calling me a Scammer, accusing me of spreading hate speech and accusing me having personal vendetta with Waqar Zaka - which I think falls under WP:PERSONALATTACKS. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * – Per WP:NOTHERE. User removed part of his own report and still won't answer the questions about COI editing. See their talk page for details. If new accounts continue with more inappropriate edits at Waqar Zaka I still recommend that EC protection of the article be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:183.90.36.17 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Got studies, but inconclusive, so it is insufficient. If no study, then is no, but got clinical research studies, so got."
 * 2)  "Fixed."
 * 3)  "Spell check."
 * 4)  "Reviewed. Undone due to no explanation beyond reasonable doubts."
 * 5)  "Little, not no at all. Spelling checked."
 * 6)  "Reviewed POV edits of Alexbrn."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Cupping therapy. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Misleading edit summaries regarding spelling when this is a an attempt to indicate (without evidence or reference) that there is a beneficial aspect to this pseudoscience. Ifnord (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. They are persisting in their edit warring false material into the article despite several warnings from multiple editors not to do this and show no signs of collaboration. I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia or open a proper discussion about this on the article talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two years by User:MelanieN. The IP editor keeps on reverting but has never used the talk page. If this person were a named editor, we would probably be giving them WP:ARBPS alerts by now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Peace in balkans reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (P.i.b.'s first edit )

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17 April
 * 2) 17 April
 * 3) 18 April
 * 4) 20 April
 * 5) 20 April
 * 6) 20 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing among several editors at Talk:President of North Macedonia

Comments:

Single-purpose account pushing a particularly WP:LAME and petty naming dispute across multiple articles and guideline pages. 6 reverts on this page, 3 of which in the last 3 hours. Has a history of flooding guideline/talk pages with endless vexatious argument over just this issue (whether the adjectival form for "North Macedonia" should be "North Macedonian" or just "Macedonian"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Peace in balkans is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Daddycakes304020 reported by User:Hut 8.5 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Note these edits consist of attempts to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to a BLP.  Hut 8.5  21:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The SandDoctor Talk 21:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Strawburry17c reported by User:John B123 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor seems to want to remove anything negative about South Korea from the article. Discussion on the talk page seems to no avail. They fail to grasp the concept of consensus, and think explaining their view of how the article should be is sufficient to justify reversions. --John B123 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . I have left a note on their talk page requesting that they review past discussions and explaining that consensus is required for changes.  The SandDoctor  Talk 00:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks --John B123 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:3family6 reported by User:Violeance (Result: Warned)
Page: }}

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]   16:19, 14 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,975 bytes +892‎  Reverted to revision 950447217 by 3family6
 * 2) [diff]   19:04, 14 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,975 bytes +365‎
 * 3) [diff]   23:36, 14 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,638 bytes +320‎  restoring band genre Undid revision 950956891 by 195.49.149.25
 * 4) [diff]   00:39, 15 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,638 bytes +324‎  Undid revision 951001086 by Violeance
 * 5) [diff]   01:00, 15 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,638 bytes +324‎  Undid revision 951008971 by Violeance
 * 6) [diff]   01:09, 15 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,638 bytes +336‎  Reverted 1 edit by Violeance
 * 7) [diff]   01:23, 15 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎  6,975 bytes +337‎  Reverted to revision 950957320 by 3family6 (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:3family6 [link]

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

Comments:

Dear Wikipedia_administrators, This is an official complaint in regard to the ongoing violation of WP:3RR, that, after four days of live argumentation and discussions haven’t bring any sufficient result. Any new attempt to finally start any editing of the page is failing due to continuous immediate reverting by User:3family6. So there were no adjustment of the page made, besides one-person totalitarian grip by the User:3family6. Unless, assume good faith on the part of others was considered firstly, further actions by the user put it under the bigger question mark. The evidence sis provided above. The details and requirements as well as issues violated are listed below.

Please, consider the following points within this complaint: 1. Methods and behaviour of the User:3family6 point to the intentional harm to the page by this editor and violate Wikipedia policies such as: WP:3RR, Biographies_of_living_persons, Neutral_point_of_view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but not the Witch-hunt place. In regard to this exact page, it was pointed out in the talk User talk:Violeance, the issues the editor must be aware of: a) “the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. Biographies_of_living_persons b) “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements”. Neutral_point_of_view c) “Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit”. Biographies_of_living_persons.

2. Even IF these rumors and harm-intentioned accusations for some reason “have to” take place in Khors_(band) article to show the whole scope of gossips made by some minority envies, it shall be moved to the rubric of “Controversy” then, as it was several times pointed in the User talk:Violeance. Such an example you can see at the pages of some famous metal bands, e.g. Slayer. Yet again, each single person shall be protected from the persecution on the base of his(her) race, nation, religion, gender, place of living, social position, etc. The same applies to Artists.

3. Although, the sourcing goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic; and requirements must be significantly stricter in articles on living persons [[:Help:Editing], the article provided is argued (wrongly) to be a reliable source and provides from zero to low reasoning to change Music genre of the Band, since the link is 1.irrelevant (a poor, not proven assumption in one sentence, in a music album review; 2. the review by this link is out-of-date (2005) - it is 15 years passed by; 3. R.I.P. to this website as it doesn't work from 2015, and nobody is there, to support or reject this false information; 4. this webzine states: "All opinions expressed in Chronicles of Chaos are opinions held at the time of writing by the individuals expressing them. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else, past or present”. Furthermore, the wrong accusations answer was more than 10 year ago provided by the recent member of the band: "I was not interested in politics and always be this way thus it's extremely erroneous to note my previous band ASTROFAES as NSBM but I don't know it's present status. We have always been patriotically adjusted and we propagandized love to the Native Land, respect for ancestors and so on but one must not confuse it with inadequate political trends and organizations"

4. Allegedly, User:3family6 does his “war” against specific genres of metal music with the deliberate harm intentions (as was partly proven by the talk, yet is denied by the User), as the same Reverting applies to many other music-related pages, if to look through User:3family6 Revision history attentively. Furthermore, his harmful, irrelevant, rumors-like labeling links on the Band's page, lead to the articles on Wikipedia he is personally and intensively working on, and then by all means is promoting and “advertising” them on the account of the other pages. I may only guess of what awards, advantages and benefits he might gain from this.

I would kindly ask you to take the complaint seriously and thoughtfully, as, allegedly, this might be not even the first case of such issues occurred, that is my humble opinion though, some revisions are might be made not in favor of Wiki audience, but rather in favor of himself. Thank you very much in advance, I ll be looking forward to hear from you! Violeance (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will admit that both Violeance and I have violated 3RR. Violeance is not entirely truthful when they say that I've reverted all of their edits - some of their edits have been left standing. This dispute came out of a larger contention over my recent inclusion of National Socialist black metal in the article, for which I provided the CoC source. The page was semi-protected per my request, and shortly after the protection lifted, Violeance resumed removal of the NSBM inclusion. We debated the issue on Violeance's talk page, and had almost reached a compromise. In the process, though, we each violated 3RR. I don't feel I need more of a reply to these charges since the diffs, sources, and User talkpage are already listed.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124;See what I have done ) 17:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should add that I recommended Violeance start an RfC since the topic is disputed without a lot of involvement from other editors.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 19:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:3family6 has recently been making lots of edits regarding . For example, see the Related changes listing for this category. He may have added as many as twelve bands to this category in the month of April. Though some choices are obvious (Nokturnal Mortum) there are others which are not obvious (Khors (band)). Since many people are undoing these genre assignments, 3family6 is getting up to a large number of reverts, perhaps two dozen reverts since 7 April. To avoid a block for edit warring, I recommend 3family6 propose how they can find a way to get consensus for these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to open an RfC about Khors if Violeance did not, only reason I didn't do so already was I wanted this ANI question resolved first. Thank you for recommending that I seek an RfC re: National Socialist black metal and which artists are classified as such. There have been long-standing issues and disputes here and it would be helpful to get broader community involvement here.--3family6 (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 19:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've above accepted the judgment of the admins here, as I freely admit that I have ignored 3RR. In interest of fairness, can a warning be issued to Violeance as well, since they have engaged in the same behavior, and have been editing the article after the judgment in this dispute?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:3family6, first of all, I am not "they", but "she". I did not violate 3RR rule, as far as I know, however, I did listed your reverting of other users' inputs in my recent complaint (from the history page), as it was made by you within 24 hours of time. What is important, as far as I could assume from this page history (and now other pages too), I am afraid that the other willing-to-participate editors just gave up to make any changes, since many of them were soon or immediately reverted, when people are usually too busy with their jobs and obligations to get involved in "editing warring", the same applies to me. Unfortunately, five days long providing argumentations talk didn't work out. Allegedly, as it feels, just my assumption/conclusion from the Wiki pages' histories and talks I looked through, User:3family6 personally (alone or with someone(s)) is very much devoted to link to nsbm as many Metal music bands as he could and to defame many of them by all means. At the moment, it is mostly related to the Black metal bands and Ukrainian bands. It is unclear though what are the reasons behind, but it is hard to believe already in Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, but I wish it would be true. Dear EdJohnston, thank you very much for your fast reaction, your time, and your attentive consideration of the issue emerged.Violeance (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting my edits more than three times is also edit warring. If I violated 3RR, which I did, then you did as well.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:3family6 is warned for edit warring. They are risking a block if they mark any article as National Socialist black metal unless they have first obtained a talk page consensus in their favor. I am not sanctioning User:Violeance because of the possible WP:BLP justification for their reverts under WP:3RRNO item #7. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:3family6 for opening the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. However, a 500-word RfC is going to choke the system; it needs to be shortened. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, it's been years since I've done an RfC.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 01:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 66.65.97.10 v myself (SMargan) RE:List of Dora the Explorer home media releases
Hello arbiters (cc: Arbiters:ToBeFree & Cyphoidbomb & Respondent: 66.65.97.10)

Previously, the page List of Dora the Explorer home media releases was brought to the attention of the arbiters. It concerned the relentless edits by 66.65.97.10 which seemed to undo all the edits I had made. Looking through the 'Edit History' of that page's edits, this continual undoing of other editors' work by 66.65.97.10 seems to have gone on unabated for a number of years, and has been brought to the attention of arbiters before by other editors. 66.65.97.10 is then, as now, not giving any rationalisation for the undo changes, or any inline citations to back up the changes, and still remains, as previously, completely unresponsive.

This editor was previous barred once for 1 day by an arbiter (ToBeFree), but continued after this unbated. 66.65.97.10 was then barred by the arbiter (Cyphoidbomb) for a week, however, the week is up and the undo edits have continued. Some of the changes are dubious formatting changes, but other changes (without a single inline citation to back them up) are to existing information previously back-up with specific inline citations verifying the data provided. The new data that 66.65.97.10 has asserted is now often directly contradicting the only inline citation provided.

I do not want to start another "Editor War". The last two I unwittingly started with 66.65.97.10 were not that productive. It takes two to start an argument, therefore, I am taking it to this "Editor Warring" page and hope that this problem can be avoided. What action, if any, do I follow to react to this, i.e. attempt to communicate with this person again, make reversion corrections etc? Can someone assist, to stop these reversion changes or at least encourage 66.65.97.10 to open up a dialogue?

Can someone help avert this potential 3rd editor war between myself SMargan and 66.65.97.10.

SMargan (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, were there any changes made that were in circumvention of the discussions that you opened on the talk page? That is, did you try to discuss ___, the editor refused to participate, was blocked, and came back and made ___ change again? If so, can you provide a short explanation of that, with diffs if possible? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To Cyphoidbomb,
 * I am willing to try anything at this stage!
 * I have tried an alternative approach this time, to the approach I took previously. I am keeping the uncited 'release dates' that 66.65.97.10 has added, but re-adding the previous cited 'release dates' that 66.65.97.10 removed. That creates 2 sets of "release dates", which technically could be possible but is unlikely for the same year. I am then marking the united 66.65.97.10 dates with a citation needed, to prompt an explanation. This ensures that the new dates that 66.65.97.10 created do not conflict with the current inline citation.
 * In addition (as you have just suggested), I will create a talk page discussion thread on each of those minor "release date" changes, if that helps. I note that a previous editor also raised one of these minor reversion changes previously in that 'talk' session. It should be noted that I have created numerous discussion threads in the talk section, which 66.65.97.10 has ignored. However, I am always willing to re-attempt an opening of dialogue.
 * SMargan (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what I was asking. Typically in an edit war, two editors are in conflict about an item in an article. For example, you previously opened a discussion because you believe, based on a DVD you have, that an episode should be "Dance to the Rescue", not "Dora's Dance to the Rescue". The anonymous editor did not participate in that discussion. Did they restore "Dora's Dance to the Rescue"? Did you open any more topics that they both didn't respond to and that they changed back to their preferred version? If not, then we likely don't have an edit war.
 * I do note some contradictions in these edits against some of the content at Amazon, though I doubt Amazon would be considered a reliable source. The anon changes "A Letter to Swiper" to "A Letter For Swiper". They also change that tape's release date out of alignment with Amazon's supposed release date. The same thing with "Wish on a Star"'s release date. So, I'm not exactly clear if this is a competency issue, or if they are deliberately adding erroneous information, or if they happen to be a children's entertainment savant who has memorised every Dora VHS release date somehow. Neither of these seem particularly helpful to our project for various reasons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To Cyphoidbomb and Trivialist,
 * Thanks once again for the time taken out of both of your busy schedules.
 * Also, thanks for the action taken on this matter by Trivialist in reverting the recent malicious changes made by 66.65.97.10 since my last report to you both.
 * This was my assessment of the situation:-
 * * I created the threads that I was previously asked to create by the arbiters, particularly for the specific areas that 66.65.97.10 recently made 'undo' editing to. 66.65.97.10 was unresponsive!
 * * I attempted a few compromises, as I reported that I would do, which 66.65.97.10 then maliciously undermined, i.e. 1) The compromise was retaining his uncited 'release date' data and placing a "citation needed" alert, whilst re-including the release date which I cited by an Amazon reference. 66.65.97.10 then removed the cited date and retained the uncited date, whilst keeping the Amazon inline citation (and even the "citation needed" remark!) which, as a result, then directly contradicted the 'release date' data that 66.65.97.10 had added; 2) I relented with one 66.65.97.10 change, i.e. the continually replacing the existing "N/A" with 'Colspans', by changing the existing "N/A" to a 'colspan' for continuity. 66.65.97.10 then contradictorily re-added the "N/A", and created numerous additional "Colspans" everywhere on the page.
 * * The changes 66.65.97.10 continually made are at odds with the inline citation references provided, 66.65.97.10 did not remove the inline citation references, 66.65.97.10 simply changed the 'release date' data to make the information contradictory to the only source provided. This is not an argument of the legitimacy of Amazon. If anyone can suggest a better reference, then I will use it. It should be pointed out that the inline citation code even has a specific ASIN tag for such Amazon data. 66.65.97.10 provided no source for the changes 66.65.97.10 had made that was more legitimate, indeed no explanation as to why the replacement data is correct, where it came from, or why it contradicted the existing retained inline citation reference.
 * * 66.65.97.10 had not given any explanation with the changes 66.65.97.10 had continually made, even though such an opportunity exists when making such a change.
 * SUMMARY: The changes that 66.65.97.10 had continually made seemed destructive, unreferenced and had an apparent underlying intention of undoing changes made by others, a behaviour he has continued for years according to the 'Edit History'.
 * I was asked to canvass my concerns here, as the correct course of action. I sought guidance on how best to proceed.
 * I am happy with the arbitration outcome! Thanks for both of your efforts in resolving this matter.
 * SMargan (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the arbitration outcome! Thanks for both of your efforts in resolving this matter.
 * SMargan (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * IP 66.65.97.10 - Disruptive editing, failure to discuss or respond to queries. The behaviour is inconsistent with community editing norms. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:ArchimedesTheInventor (Result: Not an AN3 issue)
Page:

User being reported:

User Gun Powder Ma was told by administrators to refrain from following me to pages he never edited before or edited in a long time and reverting my edits in said pages. But now he's trying to skirt the rule by reverting the sentence AFTER my edit, with things his source didn't say, resorting to Original Research, and ignoring the "qualified opinions" that he himself invited to the talk page:
 * 1) my edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) GPM's revert

Forbidden to revert my edit, GMP invited others to weigh in: In which he stated: ''A redlink user wants to see in a crossbow trigger mechanism a cam (brief vid on mechanism). I disagree. Qualified opinions are welcome.''
 * 1)
 * 2)

I also already asked him twice to refrain from calling me with terms such as "redlink user" here and here but he persists on doing so.

As a result of GPM's two invitations, a person with mechanical engineering background joined in and agreed with my revert:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Administrator Black Kite said:
 * 1)
 * This is ridiculous. Pay attention, - if I see any of you follow another to a page you have not edited before, or have not edited for a long time, and revert them, I will block you, and the block will not be short.  If I see any more gaming of the 3RR system, such as currently on Battle of Xiangyang where Quishufang has reverted (yet again) three times, I will also block, and the block will not be short.  If I see any evidence of tag-teaming to win a revert war, I will block both accounts, and the blocks will not be short.  I strongly suggest all of you, especially Qiu and GPM, avoid each other, and keep avoiding each other as well. 

Comments:

Gun Powder Ma ignored the opinion he himself invited and persisted, trying to skirt around the rule by editing the sentence immediately after the sentence I added here in an attempt to dismiss it while side-stepping the rule administrators imposed on him. The problem is his attempt to sidestep Pbsouthwood's moderation and administrator rulings, by using as a source Joseph Needham: Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 4, Part II, p. 84

I checked the source and it did not say anything about how "the trigger mechanism did not rotate around its own axis" like how he edited into the sentence here, that's just what he claimed in the talk page here, but the source he used did not say it.

What's more, he changed the sentence right afterwards about the Greek invention of the Cam, from "An early cam was built into Hellenistic water-driven automata from the 3rd century BC", which I edited back in, into "Cams that rotated continuously and functioned as integral machine elements were built into Hellenistic water-driven Automaton from the 3rd century BC." You can check his revert here. Because of his misuse of the Needham source above, it leads me to believe that the source for the Greek invention that he used, "Millstone and Hammer. The Origins of Water Power", did not say anything about this particular machine having cams that "rotated continuously and functioned as integral machine elements", that's probably something GPM added based on what he said in the Cam talk page. The original source for that same statement on Greek cams was "Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy", which mentioned nothing about the 3rd century automaton having cams "that rotated continuously", only that there was a 3rd century automaton with a cam, with no mention of what this automaton even did, much less the type of cam it used. All the source said on pg 16 was "The cam itself is attested in water-driven automata from the third century B.C., so there is no inherent problem with the concept that the transference of rotary to reciprocating linear motion was applied in antiquity" and the sentence didn't even come with a source. The new source he replaced it with is an out-of-stock book, and with the coronavirus quarantine I doubt he went to the library just for this. Combined with how Needham was misused in the same edit and what he said in the talk page, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary. --ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 24:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The person that responded to GPM's invite also disagreed with GPM's further edits here --ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 24:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not "agree with" anyone's revert. I gave my opinion on a point of fact, of encyclopedic content, in the encyclopedia we are theoretically here to build together. I am happy to give an opinion when requested on a subject in which I have sufficient understanding of the topic to interpret the evidence. I do not appreciate having my words twisted to support squabbling. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse 's advice above. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to make you feel that way, Peter Southwood. The following was what you stated, if you prefer to describe it another way then let me know and I will rephrase.
 * The trigger of an ancient Chinese crossbow is a typical cam mechanism, and it can be dated back to the 6th century BC (Zhang et al. 2004).}}Thank you . That is sufficient for my needs. The definition given is very broad, but within the scope of my experience as a mechanical engineer, and supported by other apparently reliable sources. It may even exclude some mechanisms which would also be considered cams. Until an authoritative source can be found that rebuts that definition, I consider the point to be made. The mechanism shown in the linked video above fits that description. It may not be a "typical" cam as claimed, but it has the functional characteristics of a cam according to the quoted definition, which is sufficient. The more detailed descriptions appear to be referring to an illustration, and without inspecting the illustration I cannot say much about it.--ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Pbsouthwood. This was not an actual revert and I cannot take action against someone if they have not actually contravened the guidelines that I gave. The issue appears to have been resolved now as well. User:ArchimedesTheInventor, whilst I appreciate you bringing the issue up here, it's not really a matter for the AN3 noticeboard, so if you have concerns about any of these issues in the future, I would ask that you post to my talkpage rather than here.  I can always move it to here or another admin board if I feel it warrants it.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed a sentence that ArchimedesTheInventor not only never touched but that was in fact added by myself a very long while ago. I pointed that out immediately on the talk page. ArchimedesTheInventor's behaviour is not only disruptive but also dishonest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, the sentence you recently added had to do with the 600BC trigger mechanism that I edited into the article, what you added back in 2008 is an entirely different sentence and solely had to do with Hellenistic automaton, not the Chinese trigger mechanism. More importantly to the matter at hand, the source you used did not support your edit.
 * You added that the cam trigger mechanism "did not rotate around its axis". This was merely what you (wrongly) claimed in the Cam talk page, but the source itself that you used to justify this change said nothing of the sort. Ergo if you want to talk about honesty, why don't you quote just where in Needham did he ever claim that the Chinese crossbow trigger "did not rotate around its axis"? I already asked you to provide the quote both here and in the Cam talk page. If you cannot quote where Needham made such a statement, then you shouldn't be accusing others of dishonesty and disruptive behavior. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kipps20 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 950994573 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 951300352 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 951780105 by Loriendrew (talk"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Half a Sixpence (2016 musical). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "→‎Amateur productions: new section"


 * Comments:

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure: Only professional productions should be included in this section, following the conditions set in WP:NOTABILITY. Amateur productions will be deleted without discussion. . Kipps20, who so far falls under a single purpose account, has only edit this article, adding an unsourced amateur production. As the WProject guidelines show to remove these types of productions (which also don't meet any form of notability), I removed not only the added one but all the listed amateur productions with a full description in the edit summary. After the first revert I sent a welcome message as well as a link to the guidelines, an EW notices after the second, as well as a repeated posting to the article's talk page. Kipps20 has yet again replaced these productions and posted an edit warring notice on my talk page. Not sure how many other forms of notifications can be communicated to engage a conversation. ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  21:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Wclifton968 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: 6 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 952393377 by MarkH21 (talk)  stop trying to start an edit war between wikipedians and conservapedians"
 * 2)  "The Edit war can now begin! But what is really so bad about The Epoch Times that they cannot be Cited on the English Wikipedia?"
 * 3)  "added Epoch Times Documentary which concluded that its likely that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor seems intent on edit warring against multiple editors and global consensus at WP:RSP, with edit summaries like The Edit war can now begin!. This is despite COVID-19 general sanctions, three recent warnings on their talk page, requests to them to take this specific issue to the talk page, a recent disruptive editing block, and past EW/RS blocks. — MarkH21talk 02:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

. El_C 02:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Yosemiter reported by User:73.70.13.107 (Result: OP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments: I don't understand how this report form works or what i'm supposed to put in the "diff" fields but please do something about this guy

Result: OP blocked. El_C 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Axelcabrera100 reported by User:FOX 52 (Result: one week, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notified, notice deleted

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt notice deleted restored

Comments:

Edit warring commenced with User: Ckfasdf, and had been notified to no avail, warrior chose to revert & delete all notifications. - FOX 52 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbanic reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (First edit by user Nbanic)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 22:41, 21 April 2020
 * 2) 06:15, 22 April 2020‎
 * 3) 06:33, 22 April 2020
 * 4) 09:38, 22 April 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - also multiple discussions at Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Comments:

Hi, so user Nbanic has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages, for example this one in question Josip Broz Tito and Socialist Republic of Croatia where I tried to start a dispute resolution:, unfortunately without any success. As you can see on the View history page of Josip Broz Tito, she/he has made multiple reverts even when multiple users engaged. It is hard to edit Wikipedia when a user constantly reverts and reverts even when he is given an option to discuss the issue on the talk page. I don't know what to do and now it seems that I have no other option then to file a report. This was all time consuming, unproductive and really disturbing. Nbanic just wants to push his own POV. Other users have pointed out that user Nbanic has some "family history" regarding Josip Broz Tito which shows that he can't be objective on the matter and is not seeking to reach NPOV. Thanks in advance --Tuvixer (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did not engage in an edit war. When I first started editing on the page about Socialist State of Croatia, Tuvixer started reverting my edits and calling for a discussion. I started a discussion on the talk page, he did not respond for over a week so I put the sourced content that I proposed in the page and then he started iteratively deleting it. It seems to me that he is trying to push a certain point of view by deleting valid sourced content. As for my family history, the user Peacemaker67 made a suggestion without even knowing where I live or who I am. Nbanic (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Even now, after user Nbanic was reported here and notified:, she/he still made a new edit on the Josip Broz Tito article: . What can I say. This kind of behavior demonstrated by user Nbanic is disrupting, and kills the will to edit on Wikipedia. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional information: this is where Tuvixer reverted my edits: [[]], then I edited the talk page and put my arguments for the mentiond edit, I waited for several days, nobody seemed to have anything against the edits, then I edited the page again here after 9 days: [[]], this is when Tuvixer claimed that this was unexplained: [[]], and this is where all the problems started. He did not try do engage in a discussion, but seemed to be pushing his own point of view. Nbanic (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As for the Tito page, I just added an additional reference to the already present claim in the page. This should not be a problem since it further strengthens the given claim and it is connected to one of his claims about the trial being or not being a show trial in the talk page. Nbanic (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I also tried in the talk pages engage with Tuvixer in a discussion, but he repeatedly tried to avoid it by trying to frame me with a question. After seeing his talk page, I was able to see that he was already prone to such problems and it made things slightly more clear to me as to why he would not engage in a discussion as expected by the Wikipedia rules. Nbanic (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Additinoally, as for the Tito page, it was the user and admin Peacemaker67 who finally put a stop on Tivuxer's edit warring in terms of reverting the addition of sourced content as can be seen here: [] Nbanic (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User Nbanic is not denying that he violated the 3 revert rule. He is now making false claims. User Peacemaker67 has reverted user Nbanic after multiple disruptive edits by user Nbanic as can be seen here: . User Nbanic has not "tried in the talk pages engage with Tuvixer in a discussion", she/he did not want to start the discussion in a civil manner and has behaved like a child attacking me on a personal basis. I have stated multiple times that I am for a discussion and to resolve everything in a civil manner, as can be seen on the talk pages of the respected articles. I have started the discussions and tried to engage but despite that user Nbanic has made multiple edits to the disputed parts of the articles in question. Also on the subject about the trial of Aloysius Stepinac, user Nbanic made zero edits in the article about Aloysius Stepinac, which proves that he is only interested in making POV push. That is why he often engages in edit wars and can't edit Wikipedia in a civil manner and that is why other users can't engage with him in any reasonable way possible. That is the essence of the problem.  --Tuvixer (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User Tuvixer was the first to violate the 3 revert rule if someone did a violation. As for the allegedly false claim, this is not true. User Peacemaker67 indeed did revert some of my edits, but with constructive comments and after I fixed that, he even thanked me for one such edit. Later, however, user Tuvixer tried to revert that as well only to be reverted in turn by user Peacemaker67. Furthermore, as can be seen in the talk pages, I tried to engage in a discussion with user Tuvixer, but he repeatedly did not want to do that. Instead, he tried to frame me into a situation with an ill-posed question and he did not want to answer my questions. As for the original Stepinac page, it already contains the content that I think is important so there was no need in changing that page. Why to edit it then? I read it and maybe even used some of the content from there. Now, user Tuvixer repeatedly deleted the sourced content that I tried to put in the appropriate places on other pages without giving a reason thus engaging in an edit war. That is the essence of the problem. Nbanic (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The comment above shows, once again, that user Nbanic, unfortunately does not know how Wikipedia works. That is way it is hard to edit Wikipedia when he is involved. Unlike user Nbanic who had to be reverted multiple times by multiple users I was reverted only once by user Peacemaker67 and after that I did not engage in a edit war. I tried to improve the article but user Nbanic maliciously reverted my edit and by that he violated the 3 revert rule, the fact which he does not deny. User Nbanic again uses childish arguments accusing me that I did what he has done repeatedly. The comment above shows that user Nbanic engaged in an edit war with intent to do exactly that. I tried to engage in a civil discussion but user Nbanic did not even affirm that he is going to stop edit-warring. How is it possible to engage in a civil discussion when other party does not even want to promise that they are not going to start an edit war all over again? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR violation. Number   5  7  12:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:Slatersteven (No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

Their Response to my asking for a justification for the mass deletion of sources was this []. Note that the user is aware of DS sanctions being applied to this page []Slatersteven Its hard to keep track of when they breached 3RR (and they have made 4 reverts) as they have made so many edits over a 48 hour period. So I stated with their first removal of content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This was their response to being told about this edit war report []Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: And while response to 's query was rude, it was also an understandable reaction to the trolling and personal attacks they have been facing by numerous sock accounts in relation t this and related articles. Pinging,  since they have been kept busy admining these pages over the past few days and are familiar with the issue.
 * Urge both editors to step back from the precipice. Abecedare (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC) (fixed formatting typo. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC))
 * As I said there are a lot of edits, three were reverts on the same day (and the only reason there was not a four is I backed off), here is a revert (a revert is any edit that undoes another editors work) within the same 24 hour period [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: Are you familiar with the clean-up efforts and recent issues at Chitraguptavanshi_Kayastha? Or, had you seen, for example, this note on Sitush's talkpage in which they were being thanked for their work in the area, which you mass-reverted twice? Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, nor do I see the relevance, if they breached 3rr they breached 3rr. Not if they undid vandalism that is fine, did they solely undo vandalism? I mass undid because then asked "please explain" they failed to give a valid justification.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I took a look at the history of this article and it does appear to be plagued by disruptive editing, pov editing, and sock puppetry and have protected it for the time being. Slatersteven, you probably know I have a lot of respect for you, but to do a revert of many, many edits, each with their own edit summaries, with a "refusal to explain" is asking a rather lot. Best, imo, to just let this go. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually no I was not aware anyone here but a few POV pushers who get the wrong end of the stick had any respect for me. I ready know this is not going anywhere, but points were made that needed a response to. Close it by all means, as long as no more comments are made about my actions,.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Pratap Pandit reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: No violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is the most important information. The abstract needs this. Remove the entire abstract if you think it is duplicate."
 * 2)  "This is the most important information. The abstract needs this. Remove the entire abstract if you think it is duplicate"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2020 Palghar mob lynching. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2020 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)


 * Comments:

personal attack on another editor GreaterPonce665 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the personal attack ? These users are not answering any of my question properly and simply accusing me of things that I have never done. All My edits are with proof from news sites but they are removing. The user is saying it is nor fit for LEAD, but it is THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE of the article. Please see this news article why it is important. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/no-muslim-arrested-for-palghar-lynching-incident-maharashtra-minister-anil-deshmukh/articleshow/75288363.cms

I also explained on talk page but they did not reply why they are removing my edits.

I made only 2 edits so I have not violated the 3 revert rule that this user explained on my wall, nor am I making edits anymore. So how can they file this false report ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Since Pratap Pandit has not reverted since the notification on their talk page, nor have they apparently violated 3RR, I think this can be closed. Note to the filer, you should, generally, wait till a revert after the 3RR warning before filing a report here. I'm more concerned about the tag teaming and brow beating of this new user. For example, User:Brihaspati in [] accuses the editor of NPA violations in [this edit]. Various editors have left increasingly ominous warnings on Pratap Pandit's talk page. I'm going to close this but the filer and User:Brihaspati should note that aggressive warnings is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * but filer and others should note my comment above--regentspark (comment) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

regentspark Thank you for checking the articles. Brihaspati, KartikMistry and GreaterPonce665 had been threatening and ganging up on me and had made a complete mockery of rules here. After MrClog intervened, they have already restored the line on which these people were edit warring with me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:NotScaredOfAVirus reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I have not been involved in this edit war, but have had it filling up my time line long enough that I needed to bring it here. This user is refusing to discuss the issue and is reverting two other users consistently. The others may need to be looked at as well as one of the other users has been blocked 11 times previously for edit warring on this same page. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 952483687 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 952483236 by McSly (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 952482602 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
 * 4)  "health effects of microwaves"
 * 5)  "/* Microwaves & Millimeter waves (Mobile Phones) */"
 * 6)  "carcinogenic and immunosuppressive effects of microwave radiation in the spectrum of mobile phones"
 * 1)  "carcinogenic and immunosuppressive effects of microwave radiation in the spectrum of mobile phones"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Welcome! */ WP:GOODBIAS"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Electromagnetic radiation and health. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Pseudoscience"


 * Comments:
 * Seems Nanobee is disrupting Talk pages: "Wikipedia is only such a shitty source for scientific information, since it's run by degenerated, corporate funded, mongrel echelons like you." Probably time for a block per WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for personal attacks. The user is certainly giving the impression they are WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Amorals reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Sock and master blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Tenure */We cannot note analysis of the protests without noting both sides. We are merely describing what happened. Please stand down w/ the POV edits"
 * 2)  "/* Tenure */It is not like an opinion, it is like a fact, that an event is indelible whereas polls change frequently. Additionally, it breaks up the linguistic flow of the passage"
 * 3)  "/* Tenure */A single poll (which changes by the week) is not equivalent to an event that’s been widely covered in RS"
 * 4)  "/* Tenure */Gratuitous addition"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gretchen Whitmer. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Health tracing paragraph - notable? */"
 * 2)   "/* Operation: Gridlock falsehoods */"
 * 3)   "/* Operation: Gridlock falsehoods */"


 * Comments:

Straightforward case here; user has thus far declined an opportunity to self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a straightforward case. User who filed the report had engaged in multiple reverts themselves to established content w/o consensus. Additionally, they elected not to leave a message on my talk page first but went straight to the draconian route. Amorals (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it's clearly straightforward - there's four reverts right there. You have reverted literally every edit I've made to the page today, except for the most recent one — are you going to revert that one too? Yes, I undid a couple edits - but I stopped because I recognize that there's a bright-line rule to follow. You haven't recognized that and you haven't followed the rule. You're welcome to undo your most recent revert, as I asked on your talk page. But you declined, so this became necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will offer the point that NorthBySouthBaranof had himself done multiple reverts to established content without reaching consensus. The edits done by Amorals manually were primarily undoing these. Also, the user filling this report had engaged in retaliatory edits on said page which other users like User talk:CharlesShirley had complained about Bsubprime7 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to have not gotten an alert of your comments under heading “April 2020” on my talk page, it is only now that I am seeing it for some reason. Had I seen this and known that you were taking things so personally I would have been willingly to settle things on the talk page. If you are so inclined, perhaps you could withdraw this report and we can settle things the Democratic way on the talk page. My apologies, thanks. Amorals (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, sockpuppetry was afoot. Both accounts indef'd by - master was Bsubprime7. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:119.94.98.67 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 952555231 by JalenFolf (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 952504847 by Finngall (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 952498907 by Finngall (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 952404063 by Mcampany (talk)"
 * 5)  "Okay"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Animal Planet (Southeast Asian TV channel). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reverting redirection without explanation. Anon has shown an unwillingness to discuss. In addition to the evidence presented, they are also approaching 3RR on ABS-CBN Foundation as well. Jalen Folf  (talk)  20:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added another revert. I tried reverting just recently, only for it to happen again. User has now exceeded 3RR at the other article as well. Jalen Folf   (talk)  22:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 36 hours by User:Rosguill for edit warring across multiple pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Major edits and violations on "Lilith" page (Result: Malformed)


Lilith page is full of lies, she is associated with demons. It's been edited to reflect her as being Eve/Eva. They are separate individuals. These editors need to be moderated or reviewed somehow before they are allowed to post. Maybe a temp ban / suspension of their IP address. There are far too many people to list here for their false updates/edits. Other religious/spiritual, political and scientific, especially psychology/psychiatry, pages have been violated also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilith&action=history has been edited more than a couple dozen times this year and last.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4e80:23c0:b8cb:d2c6:a57a:1764 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:67.254.193.126 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  02:32, 23 April 2020
 * 2)  02:48, 23 April 2020
 * 3)  04:50, 23 April 2020
 * 4)  13:24, 23 April 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This IP has also violated the 3RR in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and German Social Union (West Germany).

They already have 2 previous blocks for edit-warring, so something longer should be considered. Please also check their recent contribs which are full of yellow filter triggers. --Pudeo (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the past,, and  have also done similar mass-scale POV-pushing, and all four use the same edit summary of "Fairness and specificity":  184... has another edit-warring block. --Pudeo (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Found another presently active IP using the "Fairness and specificity" edit summary: . The person behind this is industrious. --Pudeo (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 month in view of the IP's previous blocks and their hits on the edit filter. If you are right that the IP addresses listed above are all the same person, we might have to do individual blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It would certainly seem like they are the the same person based on the edit summaries and IP geolocation. I just found out that they used a lot of different IPs on the Special:Contributions/141.161.133.0/24 range and then these new IPs. There were two ANI threads about him in February 2020: Clearly this is someone who has an axe to grind and a lot of time on their hands. But, most of the IPs are stale now. Pinging ANI admin:. --Pudeo (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030
 * I took a look at all of the other IPs and ranges and they all seem to be stale (for now). If this person comes back with a different IP, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll handle it. Thanks!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:74.102.87.61 reported by User:Ifnord (Result:Blocked for a period of three days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */  I got nothing but time to keep editing"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* History */Wrong"
 * 4)  "/* History */History not need include antisemitism as its not true"
 * 5)  "Not antisemtic"
 * 6)  "Jackson not antisemtic"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jackson Township, New Jersey. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also multiple IP-hopping/newly created accounts with same MO in the past week. Page protection has additionally been requested. Ifnord (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:VediKboy reported by User:MiasmaEternal (Result: Partial block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid useless revision 952684623 by Tayi Arajakate (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: User:Tayi Arajakate User:VediKboy has been indefinitely partial-blocked from the Arundhati Roy article by User:El C for violations of WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't blocked, VediKboy was. I reported the incident. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected, sorry. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)