Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive407

User:Oldschoolboxing reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (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:

Comments:

No 3RR warning was given, but attempts have been made on the article’s talk page as shown in the diff above, and the user’s talk page here. With all attempts at a discussion ignored I’d say it’s reasonable to assume a warning would be too (I actually forgot a warning is necessary anyway). I was planning on taking this to DRN as advised by another user, but was reminded of this noticeboard after the 3RR was broken. – 2 . O . Boxing  00:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. In spite of receiving objections on his talk page, Oldschoolboxing has continued editing the article without letup, with just one talk post apparently trying to make fun of the filer. Oldschoolboxing has been removing well-sourced negative information from the Terry Ray article. The most recent edit summary was 'Removed misleading content'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Charles3377 reported by User:TheTexasNationalist99 (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

, a new Wikipedian, has, out of his alleged self-desire, made various seemingly disruptive edits regarding a denomination that he has created in Christianity, which bears conflict of interest in sustaining the ethos of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. His contributions, albeit in seemingly good faith until the rejection of his draft at Draft:Bapticostal Church International, were about the movement which fuses Baptist teachings with Pentecostalism. His alleged advertising-based, and denominationally-biased contributions thereafter have been reverted by various contributors. The issue seemed to be finished at hand, however, it isn't. Almost back-to-back this fledgling contributor has appeared to have asserted his efforts to making a name for himself and his own self-established denomination as if it were notable. This is why I have come to the English Wikipedia administration to help solve the alleged matter. Thank you.

--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Charles3377 is warned that they are risking a block for promotional editing if they continue to add material about the Bapticostal Church International, without first getting a talk page consensus that it deserves mention. Your draft page at Draft:Bapticostal Church International has been declined, and you might consider looking for WP:Reliable sources to justify that this church deserves coverage on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:184.14.150.225 reported by User:NedFausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user was recently blocked from editing due to adding defamatory content at Tom Herman (American football). He's at it again. NedFausa (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * by Ponyo. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Prototypehumanoid reported by User:Deacon Vorbis (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 953058699 by Prototypehumanoid: As explained earlier, my referenced revision which adds latest scholarship, is being deleted without evidence to disprove the citations.  (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Deacon Vorbis (talk) to last revision by Prototypehumanoid (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 952956864 by Prototypehumanoid: My revision was reverted claiming it to be 'fringe view'. I referenced University of St. Andrews Scotland, Canisius College, Royal Asiatic Society Britain, among others. This is the latest, contemporary view in mathematics. I would not term these sources as fringe views & anyone attempting to label them as such must provide explanation. (TW)"
 * 4)  "fixed syntax error from my earlier revision which was reverted by Anita5192 citing syntax error. all references given, syntaxes fixed"
 * 5)  "/* History */ updated the history section, with references"
 * 1)  "/* History */ updated the history section, with references"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Contested April 2020 additions */ new section"


 * Comments:

Editor is continuing to try to add their text (reverted by 3 different editors now). I started a talk page thread, which they have at least responded to now, but they are still continuing to revert rather than trying to get any kind of discussion worked out/consensus achieved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts, clear warnings. Prior problems with editor. Kuru   (talk)  15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:78.246.10.107 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Tina Lord"


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


 * Comments:

IP repeatedly continues to add unnecessary text which goes against WikiProject practice (five times in a row today alone), despite being reverted by multiple editors and having the reason why explained to him via edit summary and his talk page. — TAnthonyTalk 16:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This IP's last block was for three months and ended on 20 April. I would suggest a six month block this time around. They are unlikely to participate in any discussions or wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 6 months. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Dayanist reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Corrected the name"
 * 2)  "Corrected the names"
 * 3)  "Corrected the name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user is involved in edit warring after being cautioned Amkgp (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having an eye on the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'd say we should just let them put all sources there, and if it takes them 50 edits. Let them have their say, don't respond to it for the next 24 hours; consider staying away from the discussion entirely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Symphony Regalia reported by User:Rotideypoc41352 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring the numerous sources that do not involve Donald Trump"
 * 2)  "Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and parts of China also use this term"
 * 3)  "lets keep this, but it should not be introduced under the context of donald trump since most sources of it are not about him"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 952972419 by Hemiauchenia (talk) the sources for "china virus" do not mention Donald Trump at all"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 952972419 by Hemiauchenia (talk) the sources for "china virus" do not mention Donald Trump at all"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Wanted to mention that edit filter log links to WP:BKFIP, in case that's relevant at all. Account made two years ago, finally came roaring to life in March 2020. All edits are East Asian ethnicity-related: erasure of Chinese American identity, changing Utada's ethnicity (rev 941513448), and of course, the location-based virus names. The page history shows a lack of contribution to any other part of the article. The constant reverts show an unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of other people's points of view (and sometimes no edit summary beyond the default appears), whereas almost everyone else's edit summaries, as well as the protracted discussions on the talk pages (the active ones, as well as in Archive 6) show compromise after compromise, concession after concession. My colleague has never shown, not even once, sympathy for those their actions may harm, nor an understanding that other ways of writing the article work just as well. Not once. Everyone else, even those who agree with my colleague, had left the intro alone (when that was the point of contention) in the interests of page stability. I'm involved, so I just want to make sure that it's not just me who doubts that more discussion will subvert the pattern and suddenly work this time. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address these accusations point by point because this is rather ridiculous.
 * Only diff #3 is a revert. The other two diffs incorporate the changes of other editors.
 * The "show an unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of other people's points of view (and sometimes no edit summary beyond the default appears)" is a patently false statement. My edit summaries are right there for anyone to see. Particularly "lets keep this, but..." is a direct acknowledgement from me of the validity of someone else's viewpoint.
 * The provided diff of the attempt to resolve the dispute is an incorrect link, perhaps on purpose. The actual thread is here, and one can see that the matter has already been resolved as we've gotten outside input from multiple editors.
 * All of my edits are not "East-Asian ethnicity-related". I edit in other others as well, and I might add such a thing is insulting to begin with as I am of East-Asian ethnicity myself. My colleague, Rotideypoc41352, is directly involved in this matter and forgets to mention that he has been consistently pushing a POV that was ruled against by a NPOV discussion board. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you've been POV-pushing this "China virus" term into articles for 2 months now. Can I convince you to take a break and find something else to do? – bradv  🍁  01:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't pushed for the term since it was removed in early march, due to there being a lack of talk page consensus. With recent NPOV discussion board consensus being that it is that now permitted in the article, I've only been trying to make sure that the inclusion is done in a neutral way that is not overly focused on celebrities or secondary sources. As of right now I am letting other editors pitch in some. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps we're using the term "pov-pushing" differently, but a cursory glance through your contributions since 1 March show that at least half of your edits are related to getting the term "China virus", "Chinese virus", or "Wuhan virus" mentioned in as many articles as possible, preferably without being next to a mention of Donald Trump. At this point everyone who edits these articles is familiar with your point of view, and consensus has generally been against you. What I'm trying to determine now is whether you are able to reevaluate your strategy and perhaps find something else to focus on, or if we need a formal topic ban from coronavirus and COVID-19. – bradv  🍁  01:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you for taking a moment to listen to me. Just a few clarifications: I've only made edits concerning these terms on one article. I have joined talk discussions on other articles regarding things like misinformation, but I've never attempted to add these terms into any of them. I originally attempted to add "China virus" to said article due to use in multiple RS, but there was no consensus for this so ultimately it stalled. "Wuhan virus" was already in the article before I ever edited it. In the meantime there were multiple attempts by editors to remove "Wuhan virus", which I've opposed with the support of other editors due to WP:NOTCENSORED, and as there was never consensus to take it away. In fact through April 2nd to April 16th, I didn't even edit the article. I'm perfectly fine with people mentioning Donald Trump, but it should be done in addition to the fact that it was used well before Donald Trump by primary sources, and a lot of other editors agree on this. That's all. For reference I am a liberal. It is my impression that topic banning is done to prevent disruptive editing. Given that I always attempt to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and am perfectly fine with consensus building, I don't see this to be the case. And I am always open to any feedback on how to engage with the community if you have any for me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the point of topic bans is to preserve the ability of someone to edit while still protecting the encyclopedia from disruption. I can see that you've mainly focused on this article, but you've also argued on this talk page and others for the term to be included, even within the period you mention. This type of repeated rehashing of arguments and failure to drop the stick is a form of disruptive editing. While your interactions individually have been civil and generally good faith, when taken together as a whole you have taken up a lot of the community's time, and have almost nothing to show for it. It is my recommendation that you drop this entire matter and go edit something else. The next step is a formal topic ban or a block for disruptive editing. For now, I will close this thread with no action. – bradv  🍁  02:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kinu reported by User:XXeducationexpertXX (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  01:06, 26 April 2020
 * 2)  18:17, 20 April 2020‎


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Regarding User:Kinu: Repeatedly reverting back to disputed text and not using the talk page to discuss. Kinu has disregard for the history of the article, claiming that disputed text was consensus on the page despite the fact that such heated disputes did not persist until the text was included. In addition to the evidence presented, they are also approaching 3RR on Yale University as well. I would also note that it seems Kinu, despite being an administrator, is very likely allowing university patriotism to cloud his editing judgement. Despite the statement being clearly an example of WP:BOOSTERISM and violating basic neutrality policy, User:Kinu has continued to reinstate the highly disputed text. He additionally has an extensive history of reverting edits on the page, which disagree with his POV. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made no statement one way or the other as to which version of the article I prefer, as I don't have one. See the edit summary for this revert for my rationale for my first revert and see this comment for my rationale for reverting to said version of the article a second time. I have nothing more to say other than to note WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Kinu t/c 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – Two reverts six days apart don't break WP:3RR. But if long term back-and-forth reverting of the 'prestigious' sentence doesn't stop, full protection may be needed. User:XXeducationexpertXX has accumulated a lot of warnings in their relatively short career on Wikipedia. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education but it seems not to have reached a conclusion. Consider opening an WP:RFC before anyone reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User:JzG reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See below

Diffs of the user's reverts: In July 2018, language was added to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality by Contaldo80 that included the phrase "desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, Contaldo changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk and Contaldo, myself, and a third editor all agreed to use the word Eucharist. Stop the Church was then spun off in January 2020, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, Contaldo changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first.

In the new discussion, Contaldo requested a third opinion. That brought in several new editors, including, , and. On the talk page, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and I all favored using the word "Eucharist." Contaldo changed his mind and now prefers wafer, and JZG has offered several other suggestions, but opposes "Eucharist." It appears to me that there is a preference for Eucharist (four users supporting, two opposed) and perhaps a weak consensus for it. At best, there is no consensus. As I read WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we should "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, that means using the word Eucharist.

As part of a series of edits which otherwise improved the article, JZG offered a new formulation for the disputed sentence. In JZG's world, his version is now the consensus version and I have to gain consensus to make any changes. While I was obviously OK with the old version, I was mostly OK with his new language, except for the fact that it didn't include the word Eucharist. As a gesture of good faith I kept most of what he said, but reinserted that one word. JZG reverted.

On April 19th, after he again accused me of making a contested edit and needing consensus for it, I responded by saying "You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me." Two days went by where JZG was active elsewhere on Wikipedia but not on this article. Since he did not respond, I assumed he understood that I was correct. I reverted back to his language with my tweak. JZG swooped right back in and reverted to his preferred language.

Discussion continued on talk. I again pointed out to him that it was him, not me, who was making a contested change and that NOCON says we leave the original language in place in these situations. His response was that "The status quo ante argiument (sic) does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." I asked him where I could find that policy and he pointed me to WP:ONUS. As I said to him, I don't find anything like that in ONUS.

JZG then again accused me of being the one to make a disputed edit. When I asked him to show me the consensus against Eucharist and again where it says to ignore NOCON after "after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given," he again went silent for two days. After another 48 hours where he was active on the project but not on this article, I reverted back to the last stable language. Only then did he become active on this article again, reverting to his preferred language. He also ignored, again, my questions about where there was a consensus against Eucharist and where it said to ignore NOCON.

Tied up in all of this is a second disputed sentence in the lede. It is partially in dispute because it uses the word Eucharist as well, but also because I think it should remain in the lede, as it has since the article was created, whereas JZG does not. Without a consensus one way or the other (and with considerable sourcing to show that it was a major controversy during and after the event), my position is that it should stay. Again, after days of silence on talk I have readded the sentence, only to see JZG revert.

I have offered on multiple occasions to work on language on talk, rather than edit war. I've even gone so far as to paste the text into talk so that we could work on something there. Those offers have all been ignored.

Also, while it is not directly related to his edit warring, JZG has continued to use language that he knows is offensive to Catholics, and continues to refer to me as one even after I told him I don't identify as a Catholic or any other religion on the project. Indeed, a review of my edits will show significant contributions to a number of articles about non-Catholic religious organizations and even more to secular topics. As pointed out to him, though, I do find acts of sacrilege and language that is deliberately offensive to any religious group to be beyond the pale. I think he owes Catholics and all tolerant minded people an apology.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an administrator, he should know the rules.

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

Comments:


 * Wrong venue There is no violation of 3RR here; this is a content dispute. If you believe the behaviour of the other editor requires sanctions, you should be posting at WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I never alleged 3RR. This is edit warring. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Specifically, it is you repeatedly returning the article to your preferred version whatever changes I make. You claim to be willing to work on this, but you keep restoring the same version, and are completely obdurate in your insistence on inclusion of a specific Catholic term of art, that requires a piped link because it conflicts with the common meaning, in the lead. Need I remind you that you were already topic-banned from  for similar WP:OWNership behaviour? Guy (help!) 21:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is just plain false. As I noted above, you have made a series of edits that have improved the article. I have not changed them. I even accepted your formulation of the disputed sentence, with the one word exception. As demonstrated repeatedly, it is you who have changed the language against consensus. A majority of editors on talk explicitly reject your assessment of it being a "Catholic term of art." Again, if a consensus forms that rejects the use of the word, I will gladly abide by it. To date, there is not one. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While not explictly restricted to 3RR only, this forum is primarily designed for simple, short-term cases. I agree with Black Kite's assessment that you would be better served on ANI. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and, thank you. I don't spend much time on these boards. I'll repost there. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

User:AdrianDinamo reported by User:Bocafan76 (Result: Indeffed)

 * 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 Audax Italiano. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I welcome him, told him to used the sandbox to learn how to add stuff, I gave gave him several warnings, but he continuous to revert the edits without a care. I hope you can help, thanks in advance Bocafan76 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ( Non-administrator comment ) You both violated the three-revert rule. --MrClog (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked User:AdrianDinamo as they have added unsourced information to many pages and reverted any attempt by Bocafan76 to remove it. I am about to roll these edits back. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:123jat! reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953354869 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953347817 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953344303 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953337316 by Davey2010 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with 'uw:ew – Davey 2010 Talk 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)'"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Quds Force. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly edit warring and is removing cited content - They're also not using edit summaries, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked Yeah, that's just vandalism. Indeffed.  No issues if you revert it again. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:89.205.133.87 reported by User:ThadeusOfNazereth (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This was the original version! Look at the source at the end of the article! Not that it’s necessary, but it says: a Dutch philosopher! Ergo: let the other users start a discussion about their nonsense."
 * 2)  "Again: this was the original version! Check the source at the end of the sentence ffs! Let them explain on the talk page where it’s written that Spinoza isn’t Dutch. Seriously this is really insane. Again, what’s next? Bach isn’t German? Da Vinci isn’t Italian?"
 * 3)  "This was the original version until someone on 22 April changed it without discussion! And no, I’m not discussing with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about & doesn’t even give sources. And also: what’s the next step: Bach isn’t German?! This is absurd."
 * 4)  "A monarchical republic? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about! All the secondary sources mention him as a Dutch philosopher: Nadler, encyclopedias, even the source at the end of the sentence! Stop this nonsense ffs."
 * 5)  "What a load of nonsense, of course Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher. What’s the next step: Bach isn’t German? Of course there was a nationality in the 17th century in The Netherlands; it was a republic, not a city state."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User has refused to take issue to talk page, as have other involved users. I created a thread, located here. [1 ]


 * Comments:

User has consistently refused to take the issue to the talk page and grown increasingly heated in the edit summaries. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BFDIBebble reported by User:Kevindongyt (Result: Warned)
Page: and Page: User being reported: '''

BFDIBebble has been participating actively in an edit-war since May 2019, with the intention of spreading the domain Uncyclopedia.ca without prior consensus. I am only trying to maintain the status quo. Proof of agressive edit-warring can be found here:


 * Uncyclopedia (25 July 2019) - This is the first instance of BFDIBebble editing the page Uncyclopedia. The aforementioned user has, since joining the conflict on Uncyclopedia about whether the website [en.uncyclopedia.co en.uncyclopedia.co], created in 2013 and generally recognized as the "legitimate" Uncyclopedia (the interwiki ___ goes to en.uncyclopedia.co), or [uncyclopedia.ca uncyclopedia.ca], created in 2019, with less legitimacy than the former but called by its members as the "spoon" (opposite to the "fork") is the "legitimate" Uncyclopedia. Since then, this user has been extremely aggressive with reverting the article, replacing the article with an obviously one-sided version at User:BFDIBebble/Uncyclopedia.
 * Uncyclopedia (25 April 2020) This is the latest edit that BFDIBebble performed on Uncyclopedia, reinitiating an edit-war that started a few days before by supposed .ca members (presumably by the way they label .ca as a "spoon" and .co as a "fork".

Note that I stopped editing the article in order to comply with 3RR. It is now protected, but with BFDIBebble's (the user I'm reporting)'s version.

Another thing to note is BFDIBebble's username and intentions: quoting User:Nigel Scribbler, a sysop on .ca, "The BFDIBebble from our wiki informed us last year that someone was impersonating him on Wikipedia." Nigel Scribbler's comment can be found here.

Kevindongyt (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now leaving a ping for User:Cyberpower678 because he attempted to mediate this dispute back in August 2019. See Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My assessment of remains that both versions/sites are to be mentioned in the article and covered.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See also the old 2013 discussion at External links/Noticeboard/Archive 13, a 2018 meta thread at meta:Talk:Interwiki_map and the current discussion at Talk:Uncyclopedia. Pinging User:Aasim and User:Johnuniq from the current Uncyclopedia talk page discussion. Is there any experienced editor who wants to organize an RfC? For those who care, Main page still goes to the .co version, so the interwiki links still consider .co to be the favorite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Kevindongyt, you yourself have a very clear COI in favor of the .co fork as evidenced by this edit which eliminates all mention of the official .ca site which moved from the original Wikia location. You have made no effort to communicate with anybody regarding this and have instead ignored warnings regarding edit warring and POV pushing. You are using Wikipedia as a platform to push your fork and not to build an encyclopedia.


 * I was also met with a troll comment on my talk page at Uncyclopedia which is why I attempted to distance myself from my Wikipedia account in order to not fan the flames.


 * Your claims of my edit warring and COI are frivolous given your history in editing the Uncyclopedia article, which includes pushing your fork, edit warring and meatpuppetry, with the likes of yourself, User:Rock-O-Jello and User:Jerkistani pushing the .co fork over the .ca website. I do not think this report should carry any weight and this should be closed immediately. BFDIBebble (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Your aggressive editing, and your assumption that I am "attempting to push my fork" stems from the fact that despite me attempting to mediate the conflict on different occasions, including in May 2019, yet you are clearly attempting to push .ca yourself without prior consultation, being particularly aggressive with your use of Twinkle to scare editors away. Your use of a COI'd version of Uncyclopedia, copy-pasted to suppress any argument proves this. You are attempting to push .ca, and then reverse the blame on .co in order to make your website seem to have more legitimacy. Your claim that you are merely attempting to "distance yourself" from your Uncyclopedia username is also most likely false, granted the differences between the way Uncyclopedia's BFDIBebble behaves. I am also strongly suspecting that you are a sockpuppet of Q788771, or that you are associated with the aforementioned user, now banned from .ca (see Nigel Scribbler's comment). Additionally, the current SEO status and number of active users on .co versus .ca (120 on .co, versus 19 on .ca) also proves that .co has significantly more legitimacy than .ca. Your point has zero validity whatsoever, and I am therefore asking that BFDIBebble's request be ignored. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you have been trying to change your username in order to "distance yourself" from Uncyc's actual BFDIBebble, now that Nigel Scribbler has called you out. This is definitely not a coincidence. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw the sockpuppetry accusation as this is libellous and an ad hominem. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. I have nothing to hide. I am not changing my username in reference to my talk page at Uncyclopedia but rather because I want to. You are making libellous claims to try and further your argument, whilst being guilty of the POV pushing, edit warring and COI violations that you are accusing me of. I am certain you are canvassing users in order to push your .co fork. I suggest you stop. JJFuego (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I do believe in "innocent until guilty", but your constant attacks and attempts to dodge evidence proves otherwise. You are attempting to spread a specific POV without any consultation, while I am doing so in an attempt to maintain the status quo of the article at Uncyclopedia. I am not canvassing anyone. I believe that you are using sockpuppets because of the similar "troll-esque" edit nature of the other accounts whom were attempting to defame .co in various ways (most notably using fork-spoon, a term no one outside of the Uncyclopedia community would understand instantly). I have proof here from a screenshot from uncyclopedia.ca's Recent Changes page (screenshot) ((user creation log can be found here)). Please cease your attacks on me immediately. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see what those images prove. I have not made any new accounts on Uncyclopedia besides the single account which I operate. I also did not create JJFuego on Uncyclopedia and I am convinced that you and any other conspirators are fabricating "evidence" in an attempt to discredit me and to continue POV pushing. I suggest you stop. JJFuego (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, two of the accounts created at Uncyclopedia were done so in the exact time frame that I was responding to a talk page message. Nobody can respond to a message and create new accounts in the space of one minute, so somebody is joe jobbing here. I have nothing to hide, but Kevindongyt's apparent flip flopping from "mediating the dispute" to "POV pushing" definitely raises questions. This discussion is no longer constructive and should be closed as such. JJFuego (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the administrators at .ca in order for them to examine whether it is connected or merely a coincidence. Your attempts to make me seem that I am pushing a specific point of view on the Uncyclopedia article is false, as I am merely attempting to maintain the status quo, before various trolls starting attacking the article as of this last week (as I have repeated on several different times); I have included mentions of both websites within my reverts, while you have single-handedly removed any reference of .co, making .ca seem like the only Uncyclopedia, something that is false.. Your attempts to "circumvent" this conversation by requesting for this discussion to be closed is merely you attempting to deny liability. I demand that this investigation be completed and not prematurely closed. Kevindongyt (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also to note, BFDIBebble attempted to spread their view through neighboring pages, which should in itself prove bad faith. Kevindongyt (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BFDIBebble, do you have any explanation as to why an account was created at uncyclopedia.ca under my Wikipedia username? It certainly wasn't me. Also, if you have nothing to hide, what exactly is your Uncyclopedia username? It isn't BFDIBebble, considering that they claim they are not you. RAGentry (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know anything about this. I would suggest contacting the admins regarding this. Please see above for my username at Uncyclopedia. BFDIBebble (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have looked above, but I cannot find any mention of your Uncyclopedia username. Perhaps I have poor observational skills. Would you mind providing a link to your Uncyclopedia user page? RAGentry (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about this except I encountered a discussion about the site a long time ago, and saw the request at WP:RFPP that led to me pinging an experienced editor that I thought had knowledge in the area. The interwiki uncyclopedia happens to point to one of the sites but that should be given zero weight in the dispute because the interwiki system is very loosely controlled and the fact that one site made it there should be regarded as an historical accident. It takes two to edit war so one way to move on from this noticeboard would be to close as "warn both" with a clear statement that any more edit warring will result in blocks. At article talk, each side should make a clear statement in separate sections explaining the background and what they think should happen in the article. After that, an RfC should occur to settle the question. I could help with the RfC after initial statements are posted, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:BFDIBebble is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to change the infobox to link to Uncyc.ca instead of Uncyc.co unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. Thanks are due to User:Johnuniq for agreeing to help with an RfC, assuming that the others are willing to provide statements. Meanwhile the article will stay under full protection for the rest of the week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Dr. D.S. White reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Warned user(s))

 * 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:

Also a possible Sock and WP:NOTHERE. POV pushing on articles. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Lard Almighty looks like he is hired by certain people to protect their public image. He is labelling a heckling incident as confrontational, and protecting irrelevant information on another person's introductory bit (and has resorted to personally attacking without any adequate, logical reasoning for protecting the information I mentioned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. I have no interest in this article or person beyond protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lard Almighty has taken the right actions here IMO. The real report should be for User:Dr. D.S. White JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So the checking language is vandalism to you? You clearly have certain biases that you want to protect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am cautioning you both against further edit warring. You need to discuss this on the article talk page, or go to dispute resolution. DS White, do not make further accusations without direct evidence(and without outing editors). 13:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)331dot (talk)
 * Sure, I'm just a person who'd been noticing these things for a while with Indian wiki articles, and I thought I'd change them. If you want any verifiability you can literally see this particular incident. Calling it "confronting" and not "heckling" is like calling murdered "neutralised". It's ridiculous. I don't really care anymore I'm not acquainted with Wiki and I have a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a sock either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr D.S. Winters (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly are since you posted this using one of your other accounts. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the sock indefinitely and the OP for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:OkurrWebbs reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:

Article is under 1RR. Editor started as an IP, then logged in and continued. DS and edit warring warnings given. 1RR warning wasn't easy to see on the TP, so I made it clearer. Editor came to talk, was told by an admin that Twitter is not reliable for the time of day, yet persisted. I cannot revert due to 1RR. O3000 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a fifth diff. A revert of an admin on the same subject. O3000 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OkurrWebbs reverted (by reinserting) at 00:10 on the 27th and was given a DS alert at 01:30. I reverted. They then reverted again at 00:04 today after which User:C.Fred reverted them. Clear violation after a ds alert. Doug Weller  talk 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 331dot (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Somali Strawhat reported by User:BFDIBebble (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953719441 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953718492 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953717937 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
 * 4)  "Reverting revisions that clearly have no reason to be deleted other than the clear obvious double standard historical revisionism."
 * 5)  "Mentioned whih organization Baruch worked with. The Irgun group classifies their own members as terrorists."
 * 6)  "I only added that the attempt of the bombing in London on 1947 should classify him as a terrorist considering he orchestrated the plot. This event was documented on this page but has been severly downplayed."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Baruch as terrorist */"


 * Comments:

This user is constantly adding unsourced, potentially controversial, information on this subject. Despite having been asked several times to cite their sources, this user has not done so and has instead engaged in an edit war and continues to add the same information without citing sources. BFDIBebble (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: When asked to bring concerns to the talk page, user refused and claimed they did "not need a reliable source for textbook definitions." [1 ] ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the disputed content, which has not been resolved, the user did indeed violate 3RR. -- Alexf(talk) 18:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:74.143.76.98 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953728104 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953727377 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953727118 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953726995 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 953726855 by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 953726665 by AntiCompositeNumber (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 953725970 by Djflem (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Chris Christie. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 953726800 by Amkgp (talk) already level-2 warning given"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * This isn't "edit warring", it's vandalism from a long-term abuser. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you but there was no response from WP:AIV, and the IP user was not stopping "vandalizing"!

User:81.154.179.211 reported by User:TheseusHeLl (Result: Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of 81.154.179.211's reverts: Diffs of 81.154.188.238's reverts:
 * 1)  "Souce Unreliable"
 * 2)  "they are lying to you!"
 * 3)  "i'm not stopping until you put this on LOCKDOWN!"
 * 1)
 * 2)  " It's A f*cking lie!"
 * 3)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 4)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 5)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 6)  "you'll be sorry"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor reverted the reverts of over 5 editors! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by for a month. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ahmedfalah7711 reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953840562 by Jaydayal (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953840149 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953836344 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953833988 by Speaklevel (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 953831698 by Speaklevel (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* April 2020 */"


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


 * Comments:

Looking at user talk page, it is full of explanations and warnings but there is no response from the user. He is not responding to any message and continuing his revert spree. Jaydayal (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I have provided plenty of explanation, please check the contribute history i only amended the the british ban of RSS not the other part. You are being busy with polar mind blaming it on me. I have explained how the citation fail to verify the british ban off RSS clearly in my contrition Ahmedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmedfalah7711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that Ahmedfalah7711 is engaging in sneaky vandalism by first removing the sources and then making a "minor" edit claiming that "No citation or proof of banning by british Government", when the sources he removed clearly state "British authorities soon banned the RSS". Shashank5988 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not handling this but I will note that Opindia has him for User:Schiindler's addition of the word "terrorist", eg. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also warned of possibility of topic-ban if the disruption resumes after the current block. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Danielinnov8 reported by User:Psychologist_Guy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

I raised the issue on the talk-page earlier on. However they ignored my original request for discussion and repeatedly added this, ,

Comments:

Repeated edit warring. This user wanted to add 15 links to amazon.com. I disputed that and the excessive amount of other links they want to include. On the talk-page I created a section "Problematic edits from Danielinnov8", this user has created a section about me "Problematic edits from Psychologist Guy" but placed it above my section in an attempt to make out he was on the talk-page first. I find this dishonest. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Danielinnov8 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Joel Fuhrman unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:114.134.189.16 reported by User:MrQueeba (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953967508 by MrQueeba (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953967406 by 2604:6000:FCC2:EE00:2CA4:A39D:6F02:C6A0 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953967066 by 47.20.138.157 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953966917 by V DE VICTINI (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 953966770 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 953966614 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 953966412 by JamesHSmith6789 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 953966310 by 2601:404:8102:5590:6929:7B9E:586B:4639 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 953966206 by Stizzleswick (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 953965815 by GenesisMaster (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

repeatedly adding text about an unrelated celebrity to the top of the article despite several reverts. already received warning from another user MrQueeba (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:MrQueeba please don't waste time (yours and ours) writing this up on this board--it's obvious vandalism. Thank you. The very first person who saw this should have reported it immediately: it is obvious vandalism, and, even if you didn't know the same a-hole was doing this yesterday already. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:81.154.179.211 reported by User:TheseusHeLl (Result: Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of 81.154.179.211's reverts: Diffs of 81.154.188.238's reverts:
 * 1)  "Souce Unreliable"
 * 2)  "they are lying to you!"
 * 3)  "i'm not stopping until you put this on LOCKDOWN!"
 * 1)
 * 2)  " It's A f*cking lie!"
 * 3)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 4)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 5)  "you'll be sorry"
 * 6)  "you'll be sorry"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor reverted the reverts of over 5 editors! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by for a month. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ahmedfalah7711 reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953840562 by Jaydayal (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953840149 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953836344 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953833988 by Speaklevel (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 953831698 by Speaklevel (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* April 2020 */"


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


 * Comments:

Looking at user talk page, it is full of explanations and warnings but there is no response from the user. He is not responding to any message and continuing his revert spree. Jaydayal (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I have provided plenty of explanation, please check the contribute history i only amended the the british ban of RSS not the other part. You are being busy with polar mind blaming it on me. I have explained how the citation fail to verify the british ban off RSS clearly in my contrition Ahmedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmedfalah7711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that Ahmedfalah7711 is engaging in sneaky vandalism by first removing the sources and then making a "minor" edit claiming that "No citation or proof of banning by british Government", when the sources he removed clearly state "British authorities soon banned the RSS". Shashank5988 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not handling this but I will note that Opindia has him for User:Schiindler's addition of the word "terrorist", eg. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also warned of possibility of topic-ban if the disruption resumes after the current block. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ash Salvatore reported by User:Robertsky (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sales updated!! And yaa bish faces better keep ya pointy nose outta it!! Unless ya got somthing ti prove me wrong."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953805386 by 88marcus (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953583355 by 88marcus (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 953352041 by DariuZzandor (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 953051256 by Keith D (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) The user's talk page
 * 2) Talk:Enrique Iglesias


 * Comments:

The user has been disruptive on this article, insisting on using a relatively less reliable source to inflate the sales figure of the artist despite the reasoning given in the user's talk page. The user had been 3RR ban before on 3 April for the same article, and refuses to engage in constructive criticism and reasoning. Despite not breaching 3RR per day, the user have been reverting other users' edits over the same statement ever since his block ended. robertsky (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks by User:Ponyo for disruptive editing. This follows an earlier 72-hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:StevinelIsAwesome reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on She-Ra. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User:Satendresse reported by User:Graecusperseus (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User reported:

This user actively refuses to continue engaging in the talk page and it seems futile to try to convince him to do so. It seems necessary to block him.Graecusperseus (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I see no evidence of any attempt to communicate with this user, either at their user talk page or the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is some communication, but I don't see enough history to say they refuse to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Satendresse wasn not warned about 3RR and in fact, there is nothing on their talk page about this dispute. Report again if this problem continues after a proper warning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:51.235.191.121 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added content"
 * 2)  "added content"
 * 1)  "added content"
 * 2)  "added content"
 * 1)  "added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on She-Ra. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on She-Ra. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

They are busy vandalizing even after warning and leading to WP:AN3 Amkgp (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nyclover4 reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

God knows why this new user was so bored they decided to go tearing apart Katie Moore (model) for no valid reason. Claiming the article is promotional (it’s not... it’s a standard fashion model stub of an article), claiming reliable sources are unreliable or self-published, and trying to remove a bunch of content to get the page speedily deleted. If they knew how Wikipedia worked they would’ve proposed deletion if they believed the model did not meet notability standards. But obviously that’s not the case as reliable sources like W Magazine, Harper’s Bazaar, and the Houston Chronicle have given her enough significant coverage.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)
 * Result: User:Nyclover4 is warned that competence is expected. With this edit he managed to trash the infobox. On his eighth Wikipedia edit he placed a well-formed G11 tag on the article. Meanwhile he managed to trigger the edit filter. The article is well-sourced and the subject is probably notable. This may not be the user's first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)
 * Result: User:Nyclover4 is warned that competence is expected. With this edit he managed to trash the infobox. On his eighth Wikipedia edit he placed a well-formed G11 tag on the article. Meanwhile he managed to trigger the edit filter. The article is well-sourced and the subject is probably notable. This may not be the user's first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)
 * Result: User:Nyclover4 is warned that competence is expected. With this edit he managed to trash the infobox. On his eighth Wikipedia edit he placed a well-formed G11 tag on the article. Meanwhile he managed to trigger the edit filter. The article is well-sourced and the subject is probably notable. This may not be the user's first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:72.86.138.120 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Semi, Rangeblock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 953494621 by ZimZalaBim (talk) you're edit warring to sustain your opinion of the "importance" of this committee. Need to make up your own mind why you keep reverting: is it irrelevant material or not?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 953493513 by ZimZalaBim (talk) this is a well known/easily ascertained fact. What is an opinion is your declaration that the committee assignment is important, which cannot stand if one admits that nobody with seniority got appointed to it. You're edit warring to impose your opinion...about a committee assignment so trivial it hasn't even occured to you to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 953484889 by ZimZalaBim (talk) needless deletion of relevant material. If the committee is important as claimed, the lack of seniority would be highly relevant. Who benefits from suppressing that info?"


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


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


 * Comments:

This IP range is engaging in the persistent insertion of POV commentary, continuously reverting any attempt to remove it from the article. The article was recently protected due to this activity, but now restrictions are lifted and the IP range is back. Zim Zala Bim talk 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at page history you'll see the other IP addresses involved, which also included harassing me on my talk page. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

But you yourself are not engaging in edit warring, or pushing your own POV? This began, I'll remaind all, with my deletion of a trivial insertion on Toomey's page by a Politico sockpuppet of a Politico story noting that Toomey had been appointed to (another) committee tasked with overseeing the vast emergency spending by the Trump administration. Trivial because it cannot meet during the emergency recess, cannot force Trump to reveal information he has said in his signing statement he will not permit Congress to oversee, and cannot use clout it does not have (1 of the 4 members is not even an elected official, the other 2 have virtually no seniority -- in other words, a committee nobody with clout wanted to be on). The creation of the committee was an extremely small deal, so small that nobody on Toomey's page even thought to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments. It was blatant sockpuppetry to promote Politico's story, pure and simple. Instead of accepting that I was eliminating trivia, ZimZalaBim and a handful of other naive (?) editors began reverting over and over the deletion of the sockpuppet's work, insisting without argument and in the absense of evidence that the committee was important and highly relevant now. ZimZalaBim was so determined to prevent the inclusion of my edits that, once I accepted that these "naive" editors were not going to let it be removed or even try to make a case for its importance, and once I decided to add basic context to let readers determine whether this semi-orphaned committee was actually important, ZimZalaBim began deleting all those edits as well. Again, no justification, evidence or argument - just edit warring and threatening as alwasy to ban me. Utterly preposterous behavior...elevating trivia and ignorning sockpuppetry, just because he has the power to do so.

As for the complaints about my IP addresses, that just goes to prove that he and his buddies don't understand how some ISPs assign IP addresses randomly. I have in fact improved the Toomey page considerably over the years, something that cannot be said of ZimZalaBim or the other "naive" editors who wish to block me from unscrewing what the sockpuppet screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.120 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be civil in your interactions and discussions. Toomey's appointment to the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission is notable. Whether you feel the Commission will have any power or influence is your opinion and not relevant in an encyclopedia. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 14:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected ten days by User:Ymblanter. User:Drmies has blocked Special:Contributions/72.86.136.0/22 for three months. More discussion of the block can be seen at User talk:72.86.137.160. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:‎ Buidhe reported by User:Light show (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] This is not a 3RR notice. --Light show (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Light show (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that Light show did not warn Buidhe regarding edit warring before coming here. I also note that the "discussion" Light show opened on the talk page was open all of three hours before they brought it here. That's certainly not in the spirit, regardless of the letter, of the policy.   ——  SN  54129  09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor had already replied three times and made it totally clear they had no intention of discussing their deletions. A notice was placed on their talk page right after posting here. In addition, the editor is obviously quite experienced and had nonetheless violated the 3RR guideline. A warning about 3RR was not needed.--Light show (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The point about warnings is that they give an editor a chance to self-revert. Let me take an abstract, hypothetical example; if an editor is, say, topic-banned from BLPs, but (accidentally) edits a BLP, they would probably prefer the warning and the chance to self-revert, would they not? I can't imagine that they would actually prefer an admin to swoop in and block them without warning, as you seem to be advocating. ——  SN  54129  09:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an edit warring notice only. The final comment by the editor (below) made it clear they had no intention to revert anything.Light show (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Your mass deletions without requested discussion should all be restored." --Light show (talk) 1:10 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * "You're the one who needs to prove consensus for the INCLUSION of this content, per WP:ONUS." buidhe 1:27 am, Today (UTC−7) Light show (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All true. Unfortunately, WP:ONUS is policy; so you better have one hell of a good reason for not abiding by policy. You don't get to pick and choose when to follow policy. ——  SN  54129  10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If you check the page history, you'd see that the number of reverts is the same between Light show and myself. I propose that the talk page discussion plays out until Light show gains consensus for the inclusion of this material (or not) per WP:ONUS. (If both Light show and myself undid until we got back to 3 reverts, the result would be same as now). Before this, I thought that edit warring only refers to the same content being repeatedly added or deleted. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am willing to agree to a temporary editing restriction on this article, but I note for whoever closes this discussion that Lightshow also violated 3RR. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Buidhe is warned they may be blocked if they make more changes to Covid-related articles in the next seven days without first getting consensus in their favor on a talk page. User:Light show also violated 3RR and should be aware of WP:ONUS when they try to restore disputed material in the future. Buidhe continued to revert while this report was open. Both users are experienced and I am surprised that Buidhe seems not to fully understand the rules. Another admin might have chosen to block both parties so I am hoping that the war stops here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I did not violate 3RR. And because the other user did, but seemed unconcerned, I decided to bring the general edit war issue here, but not as a 3RR. The other user chose to ignore repeated requests to discuss, which was the point. Although from the hostile feedback I alone received here initially, I won't bother next time I see flagrant violations of guidelines. --Light show (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Light show, the article history shows you making five reverts starting with this one at 06:35 on 29 April. Each of these edits was labelled 'Undid' so they have to be reverts. How does that not violate 3RR? On the question of hostile feedback, I hope you won't consider the above reminders about WP:ONUS to constitute hostile feedback. Your effort to open a proper talk page discussion is noted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed 3rr referred to reverts for the same edit, not to any reverts to anything on a page. In any case, my notice wasn't about 3rr, it was about a drive-by highly experienced editor doing mass deletions and ignoring requests to discuss. If you review the examples on your linked discussion, you'll see that hundreds of words from different sections, in different deletes, with at least 36 separate citations, were removed over a few minutes. They had minimal rationales, like "irrelevant." Therefore, any regular editor of an article who reverted such edits would be violating 3RR, despite requesting a discussion.
 * The editor then put the "onus" to restore anything onto whomever wants any of it restored, even demanding a consensus. Allowing that kind of protection to a drive-by mass deletionist does not seem to be what ONUS was intended for: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. There have been hundreds of edits by dozens of experienced editors before the editor drove by, none of whom considered the deleted material a topic for dispute. There were no discussions I recall about any of the now deleted material. The onus should obviously be on the other editor, who should be required to restore the deleted material and discuss before performing deletions to stable and undisputed text. And a primary editor to the article should IMO be thanked, Ed, for properly noticing the issue here, as opposed to being equally warned.--Light show (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Light show, I doubt you will succeed in getting the meaning of WP:ONUS changed. But meanwhile, feel free to open a WP:Request for comment about one or all of the disputed items. I think you are familiar with RfCs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rubriguez reported by User:Eric (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Names of the language */"
 * 2)  "/* Names of the language */Added content"
 * 3) IP diff for first edit
 * 4) IP diff for second edit (undoing Eric's initial revert)*


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edits to Spanish language */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Spanish language. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I have tried to provide guidance to this user, so far to no avail. I do not want to repeat my reverts, so I guess I have to bring this to admins. Note that the user's first two edit sessions on this topic were made while not logged in: Special:Contributions/79.159.110.249. See that talk page: User_talk:79.159.110.249. Eric talk 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note: This is my first time using the Twinkle ARV tool to make an edit-warring report, so I likely did not employ it perfectly. Open to any refinement of my approach. Note also: I have no reason to believe that Rubriguez was deliberately editing from multiple accounts; I presume the user had inadvertently logged out. Eric talk 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note: I have tried to solve this situation writing on the Section "talk" at the Spanish Language article. Please check these two active discussions: "Names of the language" #REDIRECCIÓN []
 * and "Castellano y español (map blue and red)" #REDIRECCIÓN []. Besides, I tried to solve it at Eric page with a specific discussion about it but he deleted it #REDIRECCIÓN []. I would like to ask for apologies due to my ignorance with the codes for right writing at Wikipedia. I'm learning it.Rubriguez (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Rubriguez is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at the Spanish language article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Wchales7320 reported by User:ToeFungii (Result: Partial block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added content. Non-biased, factual, supported by the Constitution"
 * 2)  "Added content, WITH REFERENCES"
 * 3)  "Added content, reference is the United States Constitution"
 * 4)  "Added references"
 * 5)  "Added FACTS. Not opinions"
 * 6)  "Added content. Again."
 * 1)  "Added references"
 * 2)  "Added FACTS. Not opinions"
 * 3)  "Added content. Again."
 * 1)  "Added content. Again."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Wanted to say hello and offer a little help */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is bound and determined to post info and been reverted by 6 users (incl one admin) for trying to post the same material. They also posted once under an ip prior to creating an account. The ip is 2001:5B0:45C0:B24C:A53D:6102:A9EF:B492 which i'm only including because i'm assuming they'll try and use that if just the username is blocked. ToeFungii (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User blocked from editing Mount Carmel Center for 36 hours.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:14.203.52.66 reported by User:Dibbydib (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 954039612 by Evolution and evolvability (talk)"
 * 2)  "The author of a work has a right not to have authorship of the work falsely attributed to someone else (s 195AC(1) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Copyright Act)). Since deleting it or salting it from wikipedia where to check for authorship, I will paste the link here:( www.linkedin.com/in/pierre-m-harkild-752131106) and if they remove it will be infringing on my "Moral rights" to be acknowledged as the author and will be held responsible if not being correctly attributed...."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Literally states that they were a blocked account earlier and is continuting to edit war on Origin (Brown novel). <span style="font-family:Arial Black, Gadget, sans-serif;">dibbydib (T ･ C) 10:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This might be the same guy as the one reported at AN for warring about Origin (Brown novel). He gave his name in an edit that has now been revdelled. He says he has a claim to copyright on some materials used by Dan Brown. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More about this story can be seen (admin-only) at . Due to the legal threats, I think that blocks or semiprotections will be justified if this editor shows up anywhere else. Admins who handled this in the past were Jauerback, Ohnoitsjamie and Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MilkyMike9788 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Tarek Fatah. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The editor is engaging in edit warring even after explaination User_talk:Thatoneweirdwikier. Please have a look Amkgp (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He/she has done this on other pages as well. They seem to insist the citations are authentic, but it's not about the citations as much as it is about the text surrounding it. Thatone weird wikier &#124; Say hi 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * CaradhrasAiguo has a long history of removing information from related articles without explanation. He first attempted to remove this section here, and I challenged this edit because most recent talk page consensus is not in favor. He then immediately reverted my revert, but stopped after I warned him to stop editing warring. The discussion moved to his talk page, where I asked for explanation on why he suddenly removed an entire section, and suggested that he take it to the article talk with a proposed rewrite. In response he indicated that he was aware that there is no consensus but does not care because his position is correct and others aren't.The next day, without going to the article talk, he blanks the section again twice (diffs 3 and 2 in the above list), and then subsequently directly canvasses help from a friendly editor (MarkH21) for 3rd revert. CaradhrasAiguo has a history of enlisting help from MarkH21 when he is in dispute with other editors. For example, when he was accused of POV editing on similar content he threatened the other editor by saying "Sod off, you have now been warned by MarkH2". Similarly, MarkH2 has a history of posting on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page to back up his arguments. Outside of the talk page, CaradhrasAiguo and MarkH2 have been coordinating in POV disputes on related topics (China) going back 5 months now. MarkH2, after being summoned, incorrectly cites WP:ONUS to suggest that CaradhrasAiguo does not need to follow BRD when challenged on removal that changes status quo, and then performs the 3rd revert for CaradhrasAiguo.Per WP:REMOVAL, "If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule". Please review the evidence. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because MarkH21 is accused of a few things in this report, I have notified him of this report on his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. If a multiple editors reverts an edit and suggests talk page resolution, the collective edits don’t get lumped together into a 3RR report as if they’re one editor. WP:REMOVAL is an essay, not policy nor guideline and definitely not standard practice.As I explained at User talk:CaradhrasAiguo, the two of you need to open a discussion at the article talk page and achieve consensus for the inclusion of the material which is required by the policy WP:ONUS. WP:BRD is just an explanatory supplement for one optional method of obtaining such a consensus.As I urged both of you to do before, you need to discuss it at article talk instead of bickering over tangential issues and frivolously accusing editors of POV coordination. This is an utter waste of time. — MarkH21talk 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it seems like Symphony Regalia argues that there was WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the inclusion of the article. The disputed text seems to have been in the article at least since the beginning of this month. The question seems to be whether "silence is consent" also means that the onus lies on the remover to establish formal consensus if there has been implicit consensus for a longer period of time. In my opinion, it does not. I would say that the moment CaradhrasAiguo removed the text, there was no longer an implicit consensus, because the silence was broken, meaning the person seeking to include the material has to achieve consensus. (Full disclosure: I was in a dispute with Caradhras in March.) --MrClog (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and I don’t think that past assumed consensus by silence is a factor in WP:ONUS anyways. ONUS is very clear: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Here, we have a dispute over whether content should be included and there is currently no consensus.Either way, this 3RR report is a waste of time. Symphony Regalia and CaradhrasAiguo were advised to discuss the actual content dispute on article talk instead of focusing on tangential complaints. This report is now the worst of the bunch. — MarkH21talk 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A 3RR violation took place. You say "multiple editors", but what you really mean is one editor and someone he canvassed directly after his 2nd revert, knowing full well that person would assist him. It's rather misleading for you to claim you told us to take it to talk or to act like you played the role of the mediator when you joined a side in an edit war and issued a revert. In reality I told him to take it to talk, which was the entire point I went to his talk page at all, and on the contrary your entry into the discussion was you asserting that CaradhrasAiguo does not need to seek consensus even if his removal is challenged, and thus does not need to go to talk. You didn't mention talk at all until after I mentioned it. Your primary purpose there was to help him achieve his 3R while providing enough plausible deniability to not look like you were doing so, which is why you reverted instead of staying out of it, and it's exactly why he notified you. You and him have a long history of doing this for each other.
 * I don't believe Wikipedia was ever intended to be an environment where someone can get challenged on a large removal, ignore WP:BRD and edit war, and then canvass an ideologically similar editor to help. There are a lot of ideologically similar editors I could call, but I would never directly notify them for the purpose of helping me revert after being challenged.
 * It seems very few editors agree with your interpretation of WP:ONUS. If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus. If you are challenged on said removal WP:ONUS does not give you a ticket to not follow WP:BRD. WP:RFC closures on longstanding content near-universally take a "no consensus" outcome as "maintain the status quo". "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" does not mean that anyone can remove sections and blank articles for any reason. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SR, re: your wild supposition Your primary purpose there was to help him achieve his 3R while providing enough plausible deniability to not look like you were doing so, which is why you reverted instead of staying out of it, and it's exactly why he notified you.–You have no evidence for that, and you will withdraw that or be seen as continuing your previous disruptive behavior. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a history of attempting to intimidate editors who highlight your misconduct, and regardless of your attempts to do so, I am not going to refrain from reporting inappropriate behavior for consideration. It is quite clear why you canvassed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to review WP:APPNOTE, since notifying Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article and Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is not canvassing.No 3RR violation took place. CA made three reverts over four days. I made one revert. Review what WP:3RR says.Furthermore, I came to comment on the procedural issue of WP:ONUS and the tangential issues raised as an uninvolved editor, . I did not say anything to the effect that CA does not need consensus or to that he does not need to go to talk; on the contrary I suggested that you build consensus (i.e. talk or DR). Nor are we ideologically similar. Your bad faith accusations are not welcome here. I told you to go to the article talk page three times as an uninvolved editor, to which you have reacted by filing a bad 3RR report.  — MarkH21talk 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A 3RR violation did occur. 3 reverts took place within 24 hours, with the last one being by someone the relevant party directly recruited, and 4 within 2 days. I don't think these attempts like this to skirt the 3RR are in good faith. You may want to note that WP:APPNOTE indicates "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." This was not done. CaradhrasAiguo only notified you (reactively, I might add), on the basis of you sharing his opinions, and did not notify anyone else and avoided going to article talk even after I asked him. You two sharing an ideological similarity is quite evident in that you've been taking his side in related POV disputes going back 5 months now, and you are not an "uninvolved editor" in that last week you were also posting on his talk page to defend him regarding a dispute with someone else.. Looking at intent here, his decision to notify you and no one else, was quite clearly intended to skirt edit warring rules without having to open a broader discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s hard for me to share the same opinion as CA if and haven’t expressed one about that article before.We are ideologically similar because CA reverted an IP’s edit that contravened the consensus from RfCs and RMs in the article talk, and because I told CA to not accuse another editor of misconduct at the talk page? Err okay.I am uninvolved with respect to the content dispute between you two on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and came to comment on the procedural issues. Me having been involved in past discussions about diurnal mean temperatures in climate boxes is pretty unrelated to whether I am involved in this content dispute on COVID-19 misinformation. — MarkH21talk 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SR, An agreement on A) using the term "re-education camps" above "concentration camps" B) using statistics verifiable by sources is based on WP:UCN and WP:V/WP:NOR, respectively, not ideology. Your characterization should be filed under commenting on ideology, and its repetitive nature a demonstration of uninvolved editors' concerns that you are beating the innards of the dead horse. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Numerous diffs are of the behavior trend are above. WP:WIAPA is not at all in play here as I am not making statements about ideology, but rather am pointing out that evidence dictates that you two share strong opinions and consistently back each other in disputes, which is a violation of WP:APPNOTE in that "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." while you avoided taking it to talk and notified no one else.


 * CaradhrasAiguo, I am not here to argue 2v1 with the two involved parties, as there are better things to do, and it is clear that no one would ever admit such a thing to begin with. If you are making the assertion that you avoided article talk and specifically notified MarkH21, and no one else, as just a mere coincidence then I believe that no impartial reading of this by anyone would come to that conclusion. It is clear that you recruited him to help you in an editing dispute and to violate 3RR. While one can get bureaucratic and deny it all they want, the intention is quite apparent. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * SR's very recent disruptive misconstrual of discussions should be taken into account. I am also typing at Talk:Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic this moment, and see little need to post much more at this thread as MrClog and MarkH21 have covered the other refutations of this facetious report. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Going to talk only after your behavior was reported only highlights why it was necessary to report your behavior to begin with. If you had any intention to go to talk, you would've went there when I reminded you two days ago, rather than WP:CANVASSING. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternate counting systems (see refutation of 3RR above), low-key personal attacks at every turn, WP:IDHT belaboring the same tired point.
 * I posted on the article talk after MarkH21 had advised to do so, shortly before midnight North American EDT; I simply decided not to make any more edits before sleeping, so your malformed report had nothing to do with my motivation, but this is conveniently overlooked. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is probably going to be my last comment here. I can see Symphony Regalia's point regarding consensus. In part, my earlier comment was more of a general way how I look at implicit consensus. However, in a heavily edited and watched page like this one, implicit consensus is stronger than normally, because many have seen the section without removing it. The attempt at dispute resolution on the user talk page was a good step, but it should preferably have taken place at the article talk page, where I'm sure more users would join in. It seems like a discussion has now been initiated at . Regardless of what interpretation of WP:ONUS is correct here, establishing formal consensus on the issue at the article talk page is a better solution for all parties involved than seeing who survives this administrators' noticeboard. --MrClog (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the perspective. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please close: This bad 3RR report needs to be closed so it can stop wasting all of our time. I would warn Symphony Regalia about their blatant bad faith accusations and remind them what WP:3RR is, otherwise there are no outstanding issues here. — MarkH21talk 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MrClog is in agreement that the twisting of WP:ONUS that was used to violate 3RR is not accurate. Ultimately it is quite clear what happened here, it is quite clear that CaradhrasAiguo was editing warring and tried to skirt the rules, and it is quite clear (see above diffs) why he specifically called you to assist him. If you are trying to make the argument that it was mere coincidence, I don't believe that will hold up. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How you managed to read ’s statements, such as and  as agreement with you that ONUS was erroneously applied in order to enact a 3RR violation is beyond me. — MarkH21talk 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * His most recent comment is right above yours. He has revised those statements with: "In part, my earlier comment was more of a general way how I look at implicit consensus. However, in a heavily edited and watched page like this one, implicit consensus is stronger than normally, because many have seen the section without removing it". You are selectively quoting. Lastly, "establishing formal consensus on the issue at the article talk page is a better solution for all parties involved" is exactly what I originally told CaradhrasAiguo when I opened the discussion on his talk page, which you opposed after he recruited you to help him edit war, by suggesting that WP:ONUS relieves him of the responsibility to seek talk page consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . Your repeated rehashing of arguments and failure to drop the stick is extraordinarily tiring, particularly as you are ignoring all refutations to your bad faith claims. — MarkH21talk
 * Attempting to influence this discussion by tagging in unrelated persons is equal parts manipulative and inappropriate, and can be seen as bad faith. Repeating "Please close" and "bad faith" is not productive when you have a conflict of interest concerning this. There is some rehashing on both sides. Ultimately, the evidence will decide. CaradhrasAiguo's edit warring and canvassing was quite apparent. Rather than participate, I wanted to report the behavior as it is concerning and skirts the rules. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see I've been mentioned and quoted a few times since my last comment, so this will really be my last comment (I hope). In this content dispute, like in many disputes, it seemed like the focus of the editors was more to establish who should seek consensus instead of establishing consensus (and I've been guilty of this too in some of my disputes). Often, editors spend days at noticeboards and user talk pages arguing who should initiate a talk page discussion seeking consensus. It would have been and still is much more useful, for both parties involved, to spend time establishing consensus. This does require either of the two parties to decide to stop reverting and allow the Wrong Version™ to stay up until a consensus has been reached - and this isn't necessarily easy to do - but it prevents a lot of frustration and wasted time. TL;DR: Try to find a consensus, instead of trying to find who should find a consensus. --MrClog (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * After wasting everybody's time here for the better part of 17 hours, SR launches a personal attack-laced diatribe (history of doing so concerning information that makes China look bad), and continues to falsely claim a particular discussion pertains to a specific story when it does not. In light of the failure to apologize for the repeated unsupported bad-faith accusations, can somebody please Boomerang at least a year-long block at SR? Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I welcome anyone to review that diff and judge for themselves if it qualifies as a "personal attack-laced diatribe", in the context of repeat poorly explained content removal. I find this rather ironic coming from someone who was blocked for over a week for personal attacks just a month ago, and in that thread you exhibited a very similar response pattern ("Their only purpose on this site is to wreak disruption. Immediate WP:BOOMERANG, please.") to what you're doing now. Concerning edit warring, if your behavior was fine, let it stand on it's own without resorting to this. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only did you edit 22 times at this noticeboard before posting at the article talk, 7 hours and 45 minutes after I initially posted, you were warned by an admin who is a regular on this noticeboard for exhibiting the same conduct as you are at this thread and that talk page. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because I tend to make tiny tweaks. You've been warned for the behavior you're exhibiting in this thread by at least five different people. Your pattern of intimidation where you issue threats and attempt to turn this into some sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND is ultimately a continuation of that behavior. I have no desire to get into an endlessly offtopic discussion with you. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those edits were not all tweaks, there are 9 posts / timestamps from that period. Fact is, you expended time and energy into those tweaks, beating countless horses to death on procedural matters and bad faith accusations, rather than posting on the article talk. And all but one of the diffs you presented above dates from February. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 03:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You never had any intention of going to article talk. You reactively went to article talk after you were reported, so that you would look less guilty. I have posted on article talk. Nothing you've been reported for is in bad faith, it's all supported by the diffs. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. You know very well my delay in posting on the article talk was due to sleeping during the overnight hours, as I pointed out. You can't have it both ways&mdash;selectively point to [evidence I was being deferential to MarkH21, while claiming his advice was not the impetus to my posting on the talk page. Caradhras Aiguo ( [[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]] ) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a regular on this noticeboard so I'm not closing this, I'm just going to pass along some advice.

There are two possible responses I see coming out of this complaint:
 * a) Any admin looking at this verbiage will find it over-the-top and close this complaint with warnings to all participants to bring the discussion to the article talk page, or
 * b) Some admin, more masochistic than I, will actually wade through this all and start handing out blocks for the disruption you have all wrecked on this noticeboard.

My recommendation is for you all to stop responding to each other, insulting each other here and move the discussion to the article talk page where you might actually come to some hard-won consensus. To the OP, this effort will not bring the success you hope for in blocking your editing opponent. Now, go do something productive with your time. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Symphony Regalia is blocked one week for abuse of process and wasting others' time. He has been blocked previously for edit warring. On 7 March he filed an unjustified 3RR complaint against another editor and was warned. He still thinks that three reverts is enough to break WP:3RR. As admin User:MarkH21 has described the complaint above, "this is nonsense." Symphony Regalia has neglected to engage patiently on the article talk page and instead is exhausting everyone's patience here. Previously on 9 March I had warned Symphony Regalia of the possibility of a WP:NOTHERE block due to his failure to provide a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction I’m not an admin! — MarkH21talk 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)  Sorry MarkH21, I corrected my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:180.231.63.209 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: one week, partial)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 954408979 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 954408286 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 954408286 by Amkgp (talk)"
 * 4)  "more unsourced removed"
 * 5)  "Deleted some of the unsourced. More needs doing."
 * 1)  "Deleted some of the unsourced. More needs doing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Iris (anatomy). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Iris (anatomy). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Iris (anatomy). (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Iris (anatomy). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Engaged in Edit warring and ignoring warnings Amkgp (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 07:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:OyMosby reported by User:WEBDuB (Result: Page protected, Users alerted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Futhermore, user continued to make the changes even though debate was ongoing on talk-page about the Background section, after a warning by two users. All moves are part of a continuous series of nationalist POV editing, which also include minimizing statements of the scale and severity of genocide and the Holocaust.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

I don’t understand why I am being reported? No edits have been made for days on that article not o mention you continued making edits on the page while and ongoing debate was going on since April 27th yet here you are making more edits on the page:

[1 ] [2 ]

You had been warned multiple times of 3RR:

[3 ] [4 ] [5 ]

Your removed sourced information from the intro that was already discussed months ago in a conversation on the talk page that you were part of.

What was on talk page in February: You: [6 ] Consensus was that itnis to stay What you removed recently: [7 ] What another user reminded you of the talk that happened months ago: [8 ]

A user made it clear to you in February and months later on the talk page that the intro sentence is Ts as per Tomasovich’s book cited. And you still manipulate the sentence or delete it to maximize some narrative or censor the information for some bad faith reason.

I literally said on the talk page “ Doesn’t change or justify the desire for genocide and other disproportionate and disgusting practices that came about with the Ustashe themselves. Removing such info would be wrong.” How am I denying or downplaying anything? You are just trying to spin a narrative on that article.

Lets not forget you repeated attempts to push this edit trying to claim genocide was a essential pillar of “Greater Croatia ideology” [10 ] and trying to portray Croatian nationalism as genocidal in nature. You are the one clearly nationalist POV pushing: [12 ]

Or comparing the genocide of Serbs as part of the Holocaust which another user pointed out as incorrect: [11 ]

[9 ] I added a sentence from the very same source you posted when you selective included one part without the counter argument presented in the same source. So who here is really trying to downplay, or skew the article or topic?

You also kept adding WWII civl war section that yet another editor had to remove and you added back again. You as well as another editor tag teaming me on the page. Multiple other editors disagreed with your edits as well and your stance on the talk page. Personal attacks against me won’t end well for you.

Not to mention I haven’t edited on the page since you said no changes are to be made until talk is done. And I haven’t. So why days later are you trying to start another issue? Looking at your edit history it is clear that YOU are the nationalist POV pusher. And you accuse ME of minimizing genocide and the Holocaust? How dare you? Where did I ever do that? You however downplayed the genocide waged by the Chetniks in your edit history. Do you even realize what a revolting and serious accusation that is? It makes me hopping mad especially since my grandfather and his brother were sent to a slave labour cam in Germany and narrowly survived. My other grandfather head hunted by Germans and Ustahse. I may have bias towards Partisans (nothing to do with the article though) as both sides of my family had Partisan fighters. So you can sod off with your revolting attacks. I don’t remotely deserve them. I’d like to say more in reaction but will bite my tongue so as to not het in trouble for obscenities.

I don’t see how these disgusting attacks say anything about me. They say everything about you and your pov agenda on Wikipedia. Be being for a balanced neutral article and being against pov edits does not mean I defend the Ustashe or fascist. Typical trollish counter by those with little counter arguments of merit. I hope admins look into your edit history. Trying to get rid of people you disagree with is a bad a low way to go.OyMosby (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have not violated any rule. I didn't change anything after the warning. After that, I summarized the issues and launched a debate. Futhermore, I added here only sourced material. you mentioned here the warning from June 2019, unrelated to this article.


 * This edit was merely a shortening of the too long section. Previously another user suggested shortening it. Basically, I did't remove any information.


 * I wrote this comment because the content of the article really looks like the relativization of genocide. It's unusual for a genocide artivles to mention the victim group's prior wrongdoings to the perpetrators. You didn't give me an example of something similar in other genocide articles.


 * The most important, I have written critically about many Serbian politicians, including their nationalist moves. Even some non-Serbian users have criticized me for “neoliberal” changes in te articles about Serbian high officals. Also, I have never removed anything critical from Chetnik articles, nor participated in these discussions.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, not one place did I “downplay” genocide or the Holocaust. You removed the 6 January and anti-Croat line despite the talk page dialogue that occurred two months ago that you were part of. The lead literaly mentions it was a disproportionate response by the Ustahse. Many artciles go into what makes an organization or person committe the atrocities they didZ as I stated on the talk page the Chetniks article mentions that to at least an extent Chetnik atrocities were a reaction to the Ustashe. Although atrocities carried out in Eastern Bosnian happened before Ustahse activities. And it was explained this many times on the talk page by various editors. You want to shorten the lead yet you added a lot to it. Also you engaged in edit warring and got more than one warning. And yes I was guilty of it too for how many in a day I did when I was getting tag teamed by you and another editor. That was my error. You are not clean here. When you made the last edit on the article asking for the editing to pause while talks occur, I obliged as you can see. And now almost 3 day later you file this nonsense report? Clearly you are doing this to editors who disagree with you. I had partook in the talk section. Like everyone else. I couldn’t care less what you supposedly said about Serbian nationalists. You wouldn’t make the edits you did about Chetniks and on that page if this were true. You made many edits towing the nationalist line or from a nationalist perspective. You are going after users who disagree with you to either intimidate or bully them or hoping to get them blocked. My conscious is clean. Can you say the same? I’m done here. OyMosby (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not delete that, but reformulated. The essence remained the same. After the warning, I didn't do it again. I summarized the issues and launched a debate. Also I also wrote a message to famous users from articles on the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, the most studied genocides, to help solve problem as a third neutral side. Futhermore, I copied that sentence about Chetniks as part of a larger text from the article. Not my original contribution. Their crimes and collaborations were listed there, as well. My conscious is clean. I will continue to criticize every nationalism and fascist movements, without violating the rules. This was the summray of sourced information from the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I linked to where you deleted the crucial information. You also made edits on other pages about Chetniks so don’t say you simply “copied”. You outright denied the information about them on those pages. You conscious is clear after what you accused me of and wrongly reported me for despite me not continuing a conflict on the article? Amazing. Claiming I downplay the Holocaust yet my edits show the opposite when trying add info about Nedic’s regime and collaboration forces in the Holocaust only for nationalists to undo me and downplay the collaboration of Nedic and his supporters [13 ] or here where clearly I was doing the exact opposite of suppressing or downplaying the Holocaust [14 ][14 ][15 ]. Also you admitted to breaking a rule. And have edits focused on Croatia or Croats pages. You don’t seem to criticize “every” nationalist or fascist movement. Whatever. This is just repetitive at this point. Good bye. OyMosby (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I watchlist this article and the recent behaviour hasn't been edifying (part of a recent uptick in editing frequency and edit-warring behaviour on Balkan-related pages between what appear on face value to be Croat and Serb editors or pro-Partisan and pro-Chetnik editors), and the personalisation of the above discussion is poor wikibehaviour bordering on personal attacks. Frankly, the material being changed (per the diffs) is not the same, and there are only two reverts of the same material (the last two relating to Bellamy). I think this can be closed as partially misformed and stale, but both editors need to take on board the imperative to discuss dispassionately on a NPOV basis on the talk page rather than reverting and communicating via edit summaries. Also, where you have been edit-warring yourself it is generally a misjudgement to bring another editor's edit-warring behaviour to this noticeboard, as a WP:BOOMERANG is highly likely once your own behaviour is examined. If I see any more of this, I'll block myself or bring it to ANI if I consider myself too involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the editor’s first entry on this page stating baseless accusations of me “playing down genocide scale and severity” and the “Holocaust” along with them claiming “nationalist pov pushing” goes way past the border of personal attacks and way into the red. It was personal, shameful and made me livid. There was a lot I wanted to fire back for that but didn’t go farther and bit my tongue. They never could explain where I denied or downplayed anything. I have proof of them doing these things though. Regardless, in their last article edit they asked that they and I refrain from editing further while discussion goes on and I obliged. Few days later he posts this here. I’m no saint, I broke the revert rule, however I participated in the talk page and didn’t go furthermore with reverts days ago. So don’t see their issue. I walked away only to be dragged back here. OyMosby (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, I had no intention of offending anyone. I'm really sorry about that. I only think it is important to follow the rules, and especially to be careful with such sensitive topics. Best wishes.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You wouldn’t have said what you did if that is true but whatever. If following the rules and being careful on sensitive topics are important, than will you report yourself? OyMosby (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – One week, and User:WEBDuB and User:OyMosby have been alerted to the Eastern European discretionary sanctions. There has been a talk page discussion but it is not well organized. I suggest opening a WP:Request for comment to improve the chances of reaching a conclusion. Admin User:Peacemaker67 has provided his own comments about this report. There has been a recent upsurge in nationalist editing about Balkan topics, as reported on 30 April at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:95.19.235.124 reported by User:Andreas_Philopater (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Over the past 12 hours, User:95.19.235.124 has been edit-warring on the article about the young Belgian climate activist Anuna De Wever. They have repeatedly removed sourced content relating to an incident in which she was hounded and threatened by young men brandishing a right-wing version of the Flemish flag, with the claim that the flag is irrelevant to the incident. The press reports about the incident took a very different view (as the sourced material shows). This diff is the latest at time of reporting, this seems to be the first (about 11 hours earlier), and there is at least one intermediate occasion, here (of what I take to be a total of five, but I stopped checking precisely upon ascertaining there had been more than three in the course of 12 hours). I have asked them to take their argument to the talk page, but to no avail. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be their response to notification of this discussion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Fortuneswheelhouses reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 954527807 by Ifnord (talk) resolved"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 954525744 by Ifnord (talk) this was resolved"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 954521343 by LuK3 (talk) clarification made"
 * 4)  "Doesn't use a last name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tamaryn. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Impending block from Wikipedia */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Additionally, user claims to be the subject of that BLP and has admitted to at least two other accounts for the same reverts. Ifnord (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Moroccan me reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: semiprotected)
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: User_talk:M.Bitton

Comments:

The "new" user is clearly ignoring what the sources say and trying to push their POV in this article and Seffa too. M.Bitton (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * you've left the Previous version reverted to parameter blank, so it's not immediately obvious if the earliest diff is a revert or just a bold edit. El_C 01:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added it. Please note that the user is ignoring what this important reliable source says (it's cited in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you basically included the Previous version reverted to as a revert — that should not be. In any case, your earliest purported revert looks like it is just a bold edit. Edits that are not interspersed by other edits don't count. El_C 01:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There isn't at the moment any violation of 3RR, but looking at the sources, Moroccan me is indeed misrepresenting them. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now we have another "new" editor (Special:Contributions/Sara.alaoui.23) who appeared out of nowhere to remove the content that I added and misrepresent the source as they wish. M.Bitton (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're obviously dealing with an edit warrior here since they reverted your edit too. Please protect the page to stop this complete disregard for what the sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had to step out. Also managed to protect the wrong article, somehow. Now dealt with. El_C 02:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Moroccan me, please just use this existing report to provide any necessary documentation. Thank you. El_C 01:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:220.240.101.203 reported by User:Informationdude420 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 954307608 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 954307546 by Diamond Blizzard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 954307480 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 954307433 by Diamond Blizzard (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 954307348 by Diamond Blizzard (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 954307241 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 954307167 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 954307092 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 954306997 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 954306915 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 954306834 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 954306717 by Informationdude420 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 954306630 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 954306543 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 954306476 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid 3rr violation"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 954306329 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 18)  "Actually you removed useful info"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 954306197 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 954306076 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 954306006 by Jip Orlando (talk)"
 * 22)  "Stop it."
 * 23)  "Undid revision 954305718 by Informationdude420 (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 954305626 by 2604:2000:2407:9F00:4865:58DE:7DC5:6E65 (talk)"
 * 25)  "Undid revision 954305445 by Informationdude420 (talk)"
 * 26)  "Your edit sure is."
 * 27)  "Undid revision 954304931 by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kundanika Kapadia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Kundanika Kapadia. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Kundanika Kapadia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I blocked the IP since the edits are clearly vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , next time, just list at AIV — that will spare you from compiling all these diffs for naught. El_C 01:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:65.128.171.67 reported by User:Epinoia (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

- also attempted to resolve dispute on user talk page: - user has been unreponsive and keeps re-adding unsourced material to BLP - Epinoia (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user is trying to claim that a variety of musicians are bass players but with no sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:AE88:A500:E9FF:B39A:F777:46F reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "/* Tourism */ section moved into 'services' section to improve structure"
 * 2)  "/* Agriculture and forestry */   renamed as section included fishing - moved in other sections on other primary industries to improve ordering."
 * 3)  "/* Mineral Extraction */  broken source fixed"
 * 4)  "/* Financial services */ renamed main header to 'services sector' and moved in software and tourism sections to improve overall structure."
 * 5)  "/* Services Sector= */ removed errant = from title"
 * 6)  "/* Natural resources */ content moved into primary sector to improve structure of page."
 * 7)  "/* Financial services */  moved Tourism sector, renamed from Financial services to Services sector"
 * 8)  "/* Tourism */ moved into Service sector section"
 * 1)  "/* Financial services */  moved Tourism sector, renamed from Financial services to Services sector"
 * 2)  "/* Tourism */ moved into Service sector section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Economy of Scotland. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Economy of Scotland. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Economy of Scotland. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Economy of Scotland. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP editor is continuously engaged in 'section blanking' and 'edit warring' Amkgp (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Garsixfour reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: Indefinite block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "politics ≠ popular culture and has nothing to do with the drink"
 * 2)  "No one is 'stalking' your edits."
 * 3)  “as per BRD, the sources are questionable and are politically charged in violation of NPOV. I don't see how an article about a drink has anything to with politics. If you have issues with the revert, use the talk page. Edit warring is disruptive. Thanks."
 * 4)  "The "Milk Tea Alliance" is an online phenomena that has nothing to do with the actual drink. No such alliance exists in the real world and as such does not meet any notability."

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

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

Comments:

Since 01:27 today they’ve only edited articles that I created or removed text I added, not sure whats going on here but its weird and uncomfortable in addition to being a 3rr violation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Has there been any communication with them? I don't see where a warning about 3RR has been given. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I took the “edit warring is disruptive” in the edit summary to indicate familiarity with the general concept, looks like they were a sock anyway. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked indefinitely by a checkuser. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:105.107.0.215 reported by User:Amkgp (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kabyle people. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Idir. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Idir. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Lounès Matoub. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Lounès Matoub. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is clearly a vandalizing account now engaged in edit warring Amkgp (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 04:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:1.46.111.166 reported by User:Amkgp (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Local area network. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user is engaged in vandalism and edit warring Amkgp (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Glen for vandalism. For details see the filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:1.46.111.166 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Local area network. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on IEEE 802.11. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is not stopping, request to block this vandalizing account Amkgp (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Glen for vandalism. For details see the filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Andigen1 reported by User:TParis (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:


 * I think it's very clear under the WP:DUCK test that this IP and user are the same person. Block rationale could be any of the following: WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE.--v/r - TP 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The acccount and the IP are both blocked for sockpuppetry. Notice the similarity of their edit summaries and their edit filter logs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Bloom6132 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Here they reverted Special:Contributions/41.220.151.161 who reverted their addition
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here's their acknowledgment that they have read it.

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

Comments:

Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. The reporting user was introducing factual errors and historical inaccuracies to the article in question. Idir was born in 1949, and French Algeria lasted until 1962. He is clear on his intent to violate WP:NPOV and seems to edit and revert with a political agenda. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to warn him not to introduce incorrect information, but of course I was reverted. Because to him, facts to not matter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously the editor doesn't understand what NPOV means, ignoring what the overwhelming cited RS say and edit warring (reverting two editors) over their prefer version. Warning them not to edit war was a waste of time. As since we're talking about agendas, I wonder what's behind their addition of France's portal to an article about an Algerian singer. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing, they are also lying about their so-called warning which was issued 10 minutes after my last edit. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . However, he is actually correct that NPOV would mean stating he was born in France, which Algeria was an integral part of at the time. Reliable sources often misname places of birth with their current names/nations (like this). Number   5  7  19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not that simple since the official name of the colonized country at the time was Algeria and French laws did not apply to the indigenous people (the Algerians) who weren't considered French. That's why, in part, I wrote the name of the country without linking to the country (the other being to comply with the infobox guideline). This is a complicated issue, but for the sake of peace, I will link "Algeria" in the infobox to the "French Algeria" article, even though it played no part in who Idir was or what he's notable for. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is that simple. He was born in France, which is what should be stated as his place of birth. I would strongly advise against making the change suggested. Number   5  7  20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Declined procedurally, per the recommendation of the reporter)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 954457956 by Mx. Granger (talk) cover-up was part of the covert PPE purchase"
 * 2)  "the problem with the rewriting of the Bild quote is that it misses why the editor called it a Trojan horse"
 * 3)  "Bild editorial, United Front Work Department (UFWD)"
 * 4)  "Bild editor Julian Reichelt"
 * 1)  "Bild editorial, United Front Work Department (UFWD)"
 * 2)  "Bild editor Julian Reichelt"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Back-and-forth edit warring between FobTown and, following a recent EW block on FobTown for previous COVID-19 related edit warring. — MarkH21talk 02:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't edit warring if you compare the last edits. We came to a concensus on Africans in Guangzhou, the United Front buying up of PPE, and I agreed to request not to make Bild editorial a standalone paragraph.
 * In all four linked reverts, you repeatedly added back a quote that Mx. Granger repeatedly removed and repeatedly moved a paragraph that Mx. Granger moved back. That’s still edit warring. — MarkH21talk 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that just removed FobTown’s edit  while this AN3 report is pending. Both of you appear to be edit warring. — MarkH21talk 16:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi MarkH21. I didn't realize this discussion had been started (the previous ping didn't work). I'll self-revert while the discussion continues. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify my most recent edits – these were an effort to find a compromise by replacing the low-quality Bild source with reliable sources reporting substantively the same information (as well as various other cleanup, copyediting, and expansion). While I don't believe this compromise-seeking constitutes edit-warring on my part, I've self-reverted as a gesture of good faith and to allow for discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also note that User:MarkH21 has a somewhat checkered history of being involved in disputes, although I am not reporting User:MarkH21 at this time. FobTown (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I reported you here as an uninvolved party. Your ad hominem (with links to a new editor being upset at having their unreferenced content removed/tagged + another editor being blocked for disruptive editing) are tangential and have no substance. — MarkH21talk 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

and I have remained civil so far, and while we are not using the talk page, we are working towards compromise wording. Thus it is interesting that an uninvolved party User:MarkH21 went straight to filing this report, first accusing myself and then of edit warring, without even bothering to mediate nor warn either of us. FobTown (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw back-and-forth reverts on a page on my watchlist, with the same quote and paragraph being repeatedly removed and added into the article without discussion. I saw that you have a very recent block from edit warring on COVID-19 articles. One can assume that you are aware of the edit warring policy. On Mx. Granger’s part, there’s some semblance of trying to revise and address through edit summaries, something that is utterly lacking in your reverts like and . — MarkH21talk 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nominator comment: Since Mx. Granger has opened a talk page discussion and the edit warring has ceased for now, I think that this AN3 report can be closed as a final warning if FobTown acknowledges the edit warring policy and refrains from unexplained reverts to reintroduce their preferred paragraphs in the future, with a preference to use the talk page in the future.Also, a reminder to all parties that there are general sanctions for COVID-19 articles in place. — MarkH21talk 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this can be closed without sanctions. FobTown's "checkered history" remark is particularly distasteful and nonsensical, though. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * procedurally, per the recommendation of the reporter ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JjlPierpoint reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Climate change */Corrected factual misinformation and provided citations to corroborate the corrections."
 * 2)  "/* Climate change */Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "/* Climate change */Misstatement of position corrected and citation inserted to substantiate the correction."
 * 4)  "/* Climate change */Corrected misstatement  of his views on climate change and added link to video interview of Dyson confirming the accuracy of the correction."
 * 5)  "Corrected mischaracterization of his view on Co2 contribution to climate change and included video interview clip of him stating his views."
 * 1)  "Corrected mischaracterization of his view on Co2 contribution to climate change and included video interview clip of him stating his views."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Freeman Dyson. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Freeman Dyson. (TW)"


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

User has made many attempts to justify their edits. They are being reverted without communication or explanation, which is a form of disruptive editing ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * - User has made attempts to justify their edits at every turn, while the reverting and reporting user has apparently made no attempt whatsoever to even explain their reverting or communicate in any way. With all due deference to an editor with 80k edits and a relatively clean block log, I'd be more inclined to boomerang the reporter. No worries though, disagreements happen, please just focus on discussion going forward. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:FullSendNelk reported by User:Dmartin969 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has only made edits on this page blanking the criticism section, and has been unresposive to talk page messages. Full disclosure I did make more than three reverts that I beleived to fall under WP:3RRNO, but hve decided to ask here before going further.


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mushuukyou reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * - Stale edit war at this point, but user issued formal AE DS notice. If this continues in any capacity, please report them to me directly, or to WP:AE, so they can be banned from the subject area. I would take the step now without hesitation if not for the "awareness criteria". Best, ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Soroushia reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crash Landing on You. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Crash Landing on You. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is not only edit warring but also involving into WP:SOCK. See the similarity of edit of and  Amkgp (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Amkgp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 79.127.1.103 (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by HeartGlow30797 (TW)"

This was the request/invitation from the fellow editor (as we were both involved in reverting un-sourced data inclusion at that moment) for a resolution against vandalism.  It's the warning given by me to stop adding un-sourced information without references, as per WP:CITE. Amkgp (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC) See report above. These edits were not exempt from 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) "May 2020 We are getting on the verge of edit warring, please confer the Talk page for a resolution."
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:
 * , I prevented edit warring by Soroushia on the page "Crash Landing on You" by placing the level-wise warnings after every revert and finally reporting after level-4 warning as evident/proof from the notices at User_talk:Soroushia. As a result, the user Sorooshia was blocked for vandalism and edit warring. The reports are available at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and Sockpuppet_investigations/Soroushia. The decision to report to WP:SPI and WP:AN/3 was taken after a consensus see [here] . With due respect I find Toddst1 is attacking me using false accusation without any reason or there must be a misunderstanding regarding this issue only. I am reverting that are inappropriate as per guidelines to stop vandalism Amkgp (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , and  I fee I am being attacked. This may be an attempt to defame my image in Wikipedia community according to my limited understanding. Please help. Amkgp (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very strict regarding to vandalism and I do report and thereafter actions are taken if found justifiable by the Administrators. you can see from the previous reports posted above (if still available). You even thanked once for many of my anti-vandalism works including handling WP:DOY issues after warning and rectifying my mistakes recently. It seems that  is eager in defaming/blocking. I request the administrators to help me though this may not be the correct forum to do so, but I have no proof except this. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

. Please do not mass ping admins — that is inappropriate. An admin will attend to the report in due time. Amkgp is not being "defamed," as they claim, this is a proper report, one which shows that they violated 3RR in a manner not exempt from that policy. They are cautioned to do better next time by observing 3RR and reporting any edit warring violations, instead, before they exceed a bright line rule. Noting the promotional nature of the edit they reverted, however. As for Toddst1, they are an editor in good standing. Any violations that are attributed to them require documentation —otherwise, it's an aspersion— which this isn't really the venue (use ANI instead, but beware the boomerang). El_C 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, But how did I violate when I reported those diffs mentioned as a valid 3RR violations proofs for edit warring by Soroushia? Edit warring was initiated by Soroushia clearly mentioned in the comments and in BLOCK notice at Sockpuppet_investigations/Soroushia and User_talk:Soroushia respectively. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I placed the edit warring today Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring after a discussion Talk:Crash_Landing_on_You#Resolve_Dispute. Thank you Amkgp (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I attempted to facilitate a discussion on the talk page after reverting the same edit two times from two different users. After 10 minutes of no reply from the pinged parties involved, I placed a warning on their respective talk pages warning them that I would call for admin intervention, including Amkgp_'s. Amkgp_ then accused of sock-puppetry and reported them. An admin banned both accounts for edit-warring, and I closed the discussion leaving the article as it was before the edit-war.

User:祖正石 reported by I dream of horses (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitational_wave&diff=prev&oldid=954584049


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

It seems that the tradition to ending edit wars is to compromise on the article talk page; however, I think the comment from fits the spirit of the rule. I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 22:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (fixed template at 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC))
 * Comments:
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:186.170.127.72 reported by User:Ed6767 (Result: Blocked 31 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 954939837 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 954939675 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 954939540 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 954939435 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 954939088 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 954938754 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 954938325 by ToeFungii (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 954937947 by ToeFungii (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 954937754 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 954937055 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 954936875 by LuK3 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 954936207 by LuK3 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 954936021 by LuK3 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 954935921 by LuK3 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 954935764 by Zman9600 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 954935665 by Zman9600 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 954935389 by Zman9600 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Upmost priority please. clearly troll only. wasting all our time constantly undoing then rollback Ed6767 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:89.205.129.220 reported by User:Grandthinker (Result: Blocked and protected )
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:

the user carries on involving himself in other edit warring and now he start to call "idiots" the other users as you can see in the same page's Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&action=history Besides, there are a whole section of discussion on the talk page that the user reported did not pay attention by viewing the majority of other users have a different position. Here is the section in the page's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&type=revision&diff=954958000&oldid=954915082#Dutch_or_Portuguese?
 * Blocked IP for continuing edit war and fugly protected page for 2 days. IP was previously blocked on 89.205.133.87. See rest of 89.205.128.0/17 as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:EditSafe (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954722784

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954597895
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954707070
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954715784
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954722784

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toxic_masculinity

Comments:

It takes two to edit-war. This user is ignoring WP:BRD and trying to force contentious material into the lead section (Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4) and disruptively tag the article (Diff 5) by insisting NPOV means including "both sides of the argument". Do not reward this blatant attempt at gaming 3RR to overturn both WP:GEVAL and WP:ONUS; I suggest an immediate WP:BOOMERANG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am trying to increase the neutrality of the article by adding cited information, with the intention of removing bias from the article, not "forc[ing] contentious material into the lead section" as User:Sangdeboeuf claims. My edits have repeatedly been undone, and I have explained my point thoroughly in the discussion section. I admit to having initially misspoke in the discussion article, which User:Sangdeboeuf continues to quote, but I clarified my point as a reply to the discussion, which User:Sangdeboeuf seems to have ignored. Further, I added a tag to inform readers that a dispute is ongoing - which it is - and did not insert this tag disruptively, as User:Sangdeboeuf has claimed. EditSafe (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that when temporary full protection expires, the protection is lifted entirely. As this article is under an AE protection, the full protection is indefinite to prevent this. The full protection must be lifted manually so that the AE EC protection is restored rather than being inadvertently lifted. This may be done by pinging me once the protection is no longer necessary; otherwise, I will lift it at my discretion. Thanks, ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello user:Swarm, thanks for your input and page protection. Just one though: wouldn't it make sense to leave the tag in place while the page is protected, to let viewers know that a dispute is ongoing? That was my whole purpose with placing the tag. EditSafe (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not and cannot "take sides". Reverting to a stable version is not a judgment call. It is nothing but a procedural reversion to the pre-dispute revision. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you briefly explain why the 3RR violation was ignored? I don't see any of the exemptions mentioned at WP:3RRNO here.--Pudeo (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: 2 weeks, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, diff, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * The Delsort talk page was not used, but the matter has been discussed on my talk page (diff) and on WilliamJE's talk page (link). I hesitate to start a third discussion about the same matter on another page, although I will if others advise to do so.


 * This user has engaged in WP:OWNERSHIP actions on the WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America page for quite some time now. I and another user,  both disagree with the user's personal stance regarding the subject that was recently listed at the page (diff, diff, diff), but the user has continued to revert, five times now. These rapid-fire reversions constitute overt edit warring. North America1000 18:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rambo Apocalypse reported by User:The4lines (Result: one week, partial)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored NPOV in lead, POV in the rest of the article, so I've re-added the POV tag.  Other users have expressed concerns over POV (see Talk), not legitimate to remove it because a user disagrees."
 * 1)  "Restored NPOV in lead, POV in the rest of the article, so I've re-added the POV tag.  Other users have expressed concerns over POV (see Talk), not legitimate to remove it because a user disagrees."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The page is Under the 1RR Rule The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Made every effort on the talk page to establish consensus, gained agreement from two people, no disagreement, made edits which addressed concerns made by other editors and they were reverted.

Another user noted that the article had POV issues, I concurred and added a POV tag. Someone else removed it without gaining consensus, so I re-added it, twice. I'm not entirely familiar with the wikipedia rules because there are so many of them, so I'm not sure what the hell I'm supposed to do to be honest. All I'm trying to do is ensure that the article gives appropriate weight to facts - i.e. the facts of what Trump has said and the fact that the NPOV status of the article is disputed. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I drew your attention to the 1RR restriction, and to the 24-hour BRD restriction, and advised you on my talk page to self-revert before anyone noticed what you'd done. You refused to do that, so here we are. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to hide in the hope that nobody notices something I've done. If I broke the rule then I broke it.  The changes I made to the article were in accordance with proposals I made on the talk page, they took into account the concerns of those users who disagreed with me re: length.  The POV issue is a point of fact and should not have been removed in the first place.  I don't know how to report people for removing POV wrongly, I tried to look it up but it seemed ungodly complex and I don't have the time to learn all these procedures.
 * As I alluded to on your talk page, the worst they can do is block me, and there's no disadvantage to being blocked if people will revert my edits anyway. It's not going to break my heart if I get banned from Wikipedia. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the point is that I gave you the chance to un-break the rule. Nobody minds if an editor breaks the rules because they didn't know about them, provided they're willing to undo their action and abide by them afterwards. There are ways to go about discussing a change in an article without edit warring about it; if you're going to edit in a subject area like this, you need to be willing to abide by the rules. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even know if I did break the rule. The re-adding of the POV tag was the only direct reverting I did, the others were either reverts after a month following no response other than agreement on the talk page, and an attempt to include it while ensuring that concerns over length were met.  I thought re-adding POV would be one of the exceptions since it's so clearly true.
 * In any case, if deleting a POV tag because you don't agree with it is in accordance with the rules then the rules are not worth paying attention to. The nature of a POV dispute is that some people will disagree, removing it within hours like you did is absurd.  I did try to discuss the change in the article, I did everything I could, but I hit a brick wall, now I have people trying trying to batter me into submission with regulations.
 * The truth is that there are a large number of editors on that page who are so convinced that Donald Trump is a racist that they want every paragraph of it to be pushing that narrative as much as possible, and anything which goes against it to be relegated as low as possible. They want the opinions of people who agree with them to trump his words.  Maybe there are better ways to deal with it but I don't know what they are, the process is too opaque.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Friendly advice: This is not a good place to attack editors. (As if any place is.) WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a limit to how much good faith one can assume. I've tried very, very hard, but when people are removing facts, not responding to legitimate points, then reverting edits and trying to get people banned it's very difficult, if not impossible. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. If they are to engage the article talk page while blocked, is reminded to conduct themselves with due moderation, or further sanctions may be applied (including but not limited to a sitewide block). El_C 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 955100033 by SamHolt6 (talk) see talk page, you've already violated a bunch of wikipedia policies, all to remove a template that doesn't need to be removed"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 955083114 by Sulfurboy (talk) according to Help:Maintenance_template_removal, message should not be removed without consensus"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 955070858 by Sulfurboy (talk) I guess next step is just go straight to a deletion discussion?"
 * 4)  "probably not notable"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Notability tag */ Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction"
 * 2)   "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
 * 3)   "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
 * 4)   "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
 * 5)   "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
 * 6)   "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"


 * Comments:

User and I had a disagreement about the placement of a notability tag. I reverted once stating why on the TP per WP:CYCLE. I reverted a last time with the edit summary recommending it be taken to AfD. After the second revert, I sought a third opinion to build consensus here User_talk:SamHolt6. agreed the tag should be removed and to take it to AfD if they have an issue. Instead of taking it to AfD or discussing it further at all, user immediately reverted Sam's edit and then further removed stuff from the page. I sent a warning for 3RR as they had committed a third revert. Users response was to send me back a warning and ignore the request to undo their most recent revert. It doesn't seem any recommendation or course of action will satisfy this user. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first diff that Sulfurboy lists above,, is not a revert. It was the notability tag that I added to alert editors that the sourcing for this article was extremely weak. On the template's page, it says in plain English, "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag." Sulfurboy did not find any in-depth, independent sources, but removed the tag anyway. The template's page then says "If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it." Obviously, he continued to edit war over it.
 * He then attempted to circumvent the rules on edit-warring by pretending to ask for a third opinion - except he didn't ask for a third opinion in line with the procedures at Third opinion - he contacted an editor that he had worked with before, here. I looked this up because this didn't seem right to me, and sure enough, there's a policy against it - Canvassing. He attempted to frame his canvassing as a good-faith attempt to ask for a 3rd opinion, which it clearly wasn't. Lastly, the "friendly editor" that he contacted did ANOTHER removal of the notability template, here. The whole process was apparently geared towards goading me into this discussion about edit warring - and yes, it worked, because here I am. My apologies for it getting this far, but I let my emotions get the better of me when Sulfurboy told me "It'll be a good learning experience for you" in his condescending way. Either way, the bullying and the maneuvering are pretty petty. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:203.54.187.246 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The IP user is constantly vandalizing article even after multiple warnings and a 3RR warning. This IP account was blocked recently. Amkgp (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:David Bani reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
 * 2)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
 * 3)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
 * 4)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 6)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
 * 7)  "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"


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


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


 * Comments:

I think he's also reinserted the copyvio, I need to check. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He has, despite my warning. It's unequivocal copyvio from here. I'm probably within my rights to indef this guy, but maybe better from someone else. WP:NOTHERE Doug Weller  talk 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:70.51.208.217 reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 955073382 by Peacemaker67 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 954740506 by ClueBot NG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Adding of unsourced material and changing wording of sourced material */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Battle of Loznica (1941) is covered by discretionary sanctions */ new section"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Battle of Loznica (1941). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is a continuation of the IP inserting unsourced POV material into a para of a contentious Balkans article which is reliably sourced. I have attempted to discuss this on the IP's talk page, have alerted them to DS, and also warned them about edit-warring, but they have refused to engage at all, and just continue to edit-war. Earlier diffs are and. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Glen. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:MA Javadi (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:36, 4 May 2020
 * 2) 05:38, 2 May 2020
 * 3) 08:51, 30 April 2020
 * 4) 08:07, 29 April 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Cautioned user on article's talk page that his edits were controversial and needed consensus. User has been slowly edit-warring instead.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Kazemita1 is trying to add a controversial edit without first trying to reach consensus. Kazemita1 was recently indefinitely blocked for edit warring and sockpupetry in People's Mujahedin of Iran (an article connected to this current one), but that was changed to 3 months after he stated he would better conduct himself. - MA Javadi (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See a recent ANI discussion about Kazemita1. It is arguable that his indefinite block should be restored. I'll ping the last two admins who may be familiar with him, User:El_C and User:RoySmith. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of the edits shown above are not even reverts. For example, my last edit on that article (first shown above) was simply a past version of the article proposed by user HistoryOfIran, that at least 3 users seemed to be OK with (me, Pahlevun and HistorOfIran). That is a relative consensus given the number of active editors in the article at the time (5). Moreover, none of the users that actually reverted my edits ever stated any reason for their objection towards inclusion of some of the contents. For example, MA Javadi, or Barca never say why including "*List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom" in the "See also" section is a problem and yet they blankly removed it from the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did reply to your query, and so did HistoryofIran . There was never a "relative consensus" as Barca also informed you . - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * HistoryOfIran's statement was after my edit! At the time of my edit 3 versus 2 agreed with that version of the article. The same is true about your response; it is after the conflict. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kazemita: prior to your last edits, it was explained why your edits were controversial and that you needed to discuss your edits and stop edit warring: - MA Javadi (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)