Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive409

User:Elmidae keeps reverting sensible edit just because he/she thinks he/she has the right to it (Status: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Here's the diff of the first revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957218396&oldid=957211969

Please note the comment. It's based on this person's personal opinion, whilst my edit is perfectly legit. What I changed was the usage of Russian word "oblast" which means nothing more than "region". It's even explicitly said in Kaliningrad Region's article. While my comments where meritorious, he/she began to write in a personal manner. I created a section on this user's Talk page, he/she then moved the section to the article's Talk Page. Normally I would let go but he/she's aggressive, biased and in my opinion, wrong. And certainly, calling me a "buster" (like "listen, buster") isn't a beginning of any creative discussion. Please look at this ridiculous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baltic_Sea#Oblast

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957218396&oldid=957211969
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957230934&oldid=957228490
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957227103&oldid=957226197
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957223520&oldid=957222010

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

Comments:

Now it's your turn. Since this user shows absolutely no will to talk, just to justify his/her reverts, I had to report it. Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , our article is at Kaliningrad Oblast. Why do you keep changing it? Guy (help!) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Guy) I have not changed a single word in the Kaliningrad Oblast article.
 * I'm changing Baltic Sea article Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ooh, this ought to be fun. I guess that's what I get for not immediately dropping a 3RR report on you when you ignored BRD thrice in a row? Well, the chronology is nicely timestamped in the history. Enjoy. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You reverted my changes four times in a row. What makes you think you're right?
 * Hopefully, the chronology will show who's done what, when, where and written what.
 * Last but not least: calm down. Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , from reading the page history, Programmer Physicist violated 3RR first, and also didn't properly comply with consensus-building procedures; as the editor introducing a change that was disputed, it's on you to argue for your case and build a consensus on the talk page. In the absence of consensus we default to the status quo from before disputed changes were introduced until the matter is resolved. Continuing to reinstate your edit after seeing disagreement from Elmidae was edit warring. Given that you seem to be willing to engage with discussion and have refrained from reverting Elmidae's last edit in this war, I don't see any benefit from imposing a block in this case, provided that you don't try to reinstate your edit again without obtaining consensus. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Rosguill From your experience, how should I obtain a consensus with such an aggressive user?
 * IMO there's no chance to convince that person that English Wikipedia should be written in English. Because in light of your explanation, "oblast" will stay there forever. This looks like typical liberum veto for new edits - any single user can block anything, at will, just like that. Hints on this particular case? Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , having a discussion on the talk page is the way to start going about this (and this is a step that's already been taken, although these discussions generally go better when they aren't accompanied by an edit war). If the discussion stalls, next steps may include requesting a third opinion from WP:3O. In cases where editors are having a hard time staying on topic or don't seem to understand each other's arguments, the dispute resolution noticeboard can help. If all else fails, you can convene an RfC to request input from the community at large. I would recommend discussing these options with other involved editors before consulting them, as some of them can involve a non-trivial amount of work to frame and participate in the discussion.signed,Rosguill talk 21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a start, it's often useful to drop a note on the talk page of connected wikiprojects, asking for comments; seeing what term we are discussing, a good option might be Wikiproject Soviet Union. I'll give them a ping. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill Thanks, I had no idea about any of these (except the Talk Page) - I'm new, usually I was contributing anonymously before I created an account.
 * Discussion with this user is pointless, so I'll try WP:3O - it seems to be a really reasonable option. If that goes bad I'll call it a night. Thanks, Rosguill

Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it seems like another editor has chimed in, so 3O is actually no longer an option as it's strictly for disputes between 2 editors. I would suggest hearing out arguments a bit more, then possibly going to WP:DRN for next steps. I would also urge you to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Especially for a dispute over something like this, everyone here is just trying to improve Wikipedia, even if you disagree on the ideal resolution to this particular issue. signed,Rosguill talk 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill Yes, I just noticed a new comment on the Talk Page. I've given it the last try, most probably I'm gonna give up on this.
 * Again, thanks for a constructive reply. I never knew about WP:3O, the dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC. That's a hell of usable knowledge. Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Chocolate Tastes Nice 10 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User keeps adding their preferred image after being informed the image is nominated for deletion due to copyright issues. Four users, including myself, have more than adequately explained in edit summaries why the image has been removed. An edit warring warning template was left on the user’s talk page by myself as seen above, as well as two copyright warning templates. – 2 . O . Boxing  01:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from this article, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ytpks896 reported by User:Xeed.rice (Result: User warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 3 edits by Xeed.rice (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Following a disagreement on the Pakistan Air Force page, user followed my edits on this page (Pakistan Navy) and the page of the Pakistan Army to revert all my edits. I have tried and failed to reach a consensus with this user but they do not seem to be responding to my requests and keep threatening to have me banned for vandalism. I take accusations of vandalism seriously as that is not my goal here and I have never vandalized. Xeed.rice (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * However, edit summaries falsely claiming vandalism like this are unacceptable. The edits being made appear constructive, so Ytpks896, if you revert again without having contributed to the talk page discussion, you'll be blocked. Number   5  7  17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman reported by User:Futbol10p (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: National Independent Soccer Association IS a Professional League

Comments:

Futbol10p 9:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only problem here is Futbol10p's attempts to add something to the page against consensus (and falsely claiming that there is). User:Futbol10p, if you make this edit again, you'll be the one blocked. Number   5  7  17:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, a boomerang here would be grand. This editor is disruptively editing against consensus as is clear from the edit history and the talk page. GiantSnowman 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:46.6.246.93 reported by User:Melroross (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:, aka , sockpuppet}}

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

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

'''Att. Administration/Investigations''' this displays the hallmarks of IP address 84.78.247.13 located in the same geographical area earlier last week which belongs to known sockpuppet User:JamesOredan aka IP address: 84.78.247.13

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.6.246.93 automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) curprev 19:33, 18 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 100,050 bytes -14‎  Undid revision 957413212 by 46.6.246.93 (talk) IP address of known sockpuppet[[User:JamesOredan undo Tag: Undo curprev 18:45, 18 May 2020‎ 46.6.246.93 talk‎  100,064 bytes +14‎  During the Al-Andalus period. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 13:48, 17 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,050 bytes +45‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: Added Frankish presence undo curprev 00:45, 17 May 2020‎ Carlstak talk contribs‎  100,005 bytes -464‎  ce: "Christian" or "Christians" is always capitalized; remove overlinking per MOS:OVERLINK; remove unknown parameters with useless info; "along with Catalonia with the Frank kings" doesn't make sense; fix broken English undothank curprev 19:17, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,469 bytes +17‎  Undid revision 957016794 by 46.6.240.180 (talk) sockpuppet account of JamesOredan undo Tag: Undo curprev 18:13, 16 May 2020‎ C.Fred talk contribs‎  100,452 bytes -22‎  Reverted to revision 957016794 by 46.6.240.180 (talk): Not common English usage (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 16:48, 16 May 2020‎ 2800:200:e0a0:54d:18a1:8081:4125:164e talk‎  100,474 bytes +22‎  undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:37, 16 May 2020‎ 46.6.240.180 talk‎  100,452 bytes -17‎  Portugal, the article is about portuguese people undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:25, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,469 bytes +17‎  Who undo curprev 15:20, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,452 bytes -2‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: punctuation undo curprev 15:18, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,454 bytes +4‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: Frank kings undo curprev 15:17, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,450 bytes +101‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: Suebian and Frank numbers undo curprev 15:09, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,349 bytes +41‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: franks undo curprev 14:41, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,308 bytes +4‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics undo curprev 14:40, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,304 bytes +92‎  Added source undo curprev 12:18, 16 May 2020‎ Carlstak talk contribs‎  100,212 bytes +21‎  ce undothank curprev 11:22, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,191 bytes -20‎  →‎Lusitanians: Disambiguation undo curprev 11:20, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,211 bytes +4‎  →‎Lusitanians: spacing undo curprev 11:19, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,207 bytes -4‎  →‎Lusitanians: disamb undo curprev 11:19, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,211 bytes +4‎  →‎Lusitanians undo curprev 11:18, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,207 bytes 0‎  →‎Lusitanians: spacing undo curprev 11:17, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  100,207 bytes +552‎  →‎Lusitanians: added source undo curprev 11:12, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,655 bytes -1‎  →‎Ancestry: inquisition undo curprev 11:07, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,656 bytes -24‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: Waves undo curprev 11:04, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,680 bytes +13‎  Corrected edits by unsigned IP 84.78.247.13 a known and banned Wikipedia sockpuppet User:JamesOredan undo curprev 10:58, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,667 bytes +3‎  Reverted edit by banned serial sockpuppet User:JamesOredan aka NormanGear aka IP 84.78.247.13 undo curprev 10:55, 16 May 2020‎ 46.6.240.180 talk‎  99,664 bytes +1‎  undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 10:27, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,663 bytes +3‎  Undid revision 956964901 by 84.78.247.113 (talk) is known sockpuppet User:JamesOredan aka NormanGear undo Tag: Undo curprev 08:25, 16 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎  99,660 bytes -3‎  Some undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 03:37, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,663 bytes +275‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: added sourced content undo curprev 03:15, 16 May 2020‎ Melroross talk contribs‎  99,388 bytes +18‎  Added Jewish contribution undo curprev 17:51, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎  99,370 bytes -3‎  undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:51, 15 May 2020‎ El C talk contribs‎  99,373 bytes -1‎  →‎Historical origins and genetics: that wording works for me — thanks! undothank curprev 17:48, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎  99,374 bytes +5‎  Wording. Gharb-Al Andalus is only Southern Portugal and West Spain. It was the Umayyad conquest who occupied most Iberia. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:39, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎  99,369 bytes -1‎  undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:38, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎  99,370 bytes +757‎  undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:35, 15 May 2020‎ El C talk contribs‎  98,613 bytes +11‎  nevertheless, this is a description of the historical event ([i.e. [Gharb Al-Andalus|Moorish occupation]], which you delinked), which encompassed the Iberian Peninsula undothank curprev 17:29, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎ 98,602 bytes -11‎  The article is about Portuguese, not about Iberians in general. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 17:07, 15 May 2020‎ El C talk contribs‎ 98,613 bytes +15‎  the Moorish occupation also left some Arab-Berber genetic contribution in the Iberian Peninsula undothank curprev 17:01, 15 May 2020‎ 84.78.247.113 talk‎ 98,598 bytes +1‎  As per sources undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit]

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

Comments:

Melroross (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ytpks896 reported by User:Xeed.rice (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision by سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ vandalism by the Xeed.rice"
 * 2)  "/* Structure */Restore"
 * 3)  "/* Awards for valour */"
 * 4)  "Restore unsource of information changing by the previous user: Xeed.rice"
 * 1)  "Restore unsource of information changing by the previous user: Xeed.rice"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Preventing an edit war */ new section"


 * Comments:

I have launched a restructuring project for the page for the Pakistan Air Force. It is currently in progress and I was still not finished with my clean-up (one of the major issues on this article as well as others was the lack of proper photos, such as the Pakistan Air Force's badge and poor English grammar and spelling), and detailing, that a user @Ytpks896 began to extensively revert my edits. I had hoped to reach a consensus via discussion with this user but they have responded with constant accusations of vandalism and have gone as far as reverting every single one of my edits on the page to the last edit that was made before I began my edits. Upon finishing my over-hauling of the page, I had intentions to go back and re-clean everything to make sure it is fit to remain (including the addition of HD photos and proper organization of subsections) and extensively cite information that had not yet been cited. I would also like to point out that all of my other edits on other pages have widely been approved of by other users with the exception of this user. I would like to make my dedication to making Wikipedia a better place clear and my edits can be seen to show that I value professionalism and organization and have not vandalized in any of my previous edits. Xeed.rice (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ytpks896 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Pakistan Air Force without having received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ythlev reported by User:Cell Danwydd (Result: Both blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom#Deletion_/_attempt_to_censor_the_importance_of_the_4_countries_of_the_UK_in_health_matters The whole of this thread was a discussion on these maps. Consensus reached to add 3 country maps, not change Infobox map.]

Comments:

The image in question (and three similar) was being discussed on the Talk page, therefore no changes should have been made to the map in the Infobox. A completely different images was uploaded to Commons by Ythlev, which fed automatically into the infobox. Users (including myself) deleted this new version on the WP Infobox, with full explanation asking the user to discuss on the Talk page. The user reinstated the new image 4 times without giving an explanation why that was done. This was an attempt to break the new consensus which had just been reached. Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cell Danwydd has been an active participant in this edit warring and if fact started it (I can't see any active change by Ythlev) see 1, 2, 3 reverts himself and some rather un civil accusations at Defacto. As per BRD Cell should have stopped when he was reverted the first time and not go another 2 times and in fact Ythlev went to the talk page after his first revert! Looks like Cell not wanting to engage here. Games of the world (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW there is no consensus to add 3 maps. Talks are still on going. Games of the world (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What BRD are you talking about? What edit warring please? You list 3 edits and claim that they were mine. Look closer and you will see that the middle one is that of your good friend Ythlev, not mine. I did not do 4 reverts. Ythlev did. Consensus was reached: Jxseph14 on 23:03, 17 May 2020 said, ' I like the multi-maps set up', Archon 2488 on 00:29, 18 May 2020 said 'I also believe these maps add value to the article', DeFacto on 13:20, 18 May 2020, you said,'I agree with the "intuitive" range idea.' of having the same Key on each of the 3 maps and again on 15:41 said: '@John Jones: so far, so goodish...' So all 5 editors had come to an agreement, a consensus that the 3 maps was the way forward. Just to recap: no BRD, no edit warring and consensus was reached. Please try clear your head before making unfounded accusations. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All three of my links are your edits. What are you talking about? Also going up to the line and not over it does not make you any less of a problem (just because another who shares your view did a revert that led to his fourth). Don't misquote users just to get a point across. Defacto didn't say that it that sense and he went on to change his mind and (paraphrasing) state that 3 maps were not needed and just 1 for the whole of the UK in the style that was being discussed and had some sort of consensus (or at least forming) for that. As far as I can see Ythlev did not edit the article he edited the map (on commons). Which you removed against consensus. Also BRD is bold revert discuss. You should have stopped after Ythlev reverted you and gone to the talk page like he had already done. Also he is not my friend. Games of the world (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced that (the filer of this report) is here to improve Wikipedia. Before today (UK time), they had only edited English Wikipedia twice this year and only a total of 12 times before that since they first edited in 2014.

Today they parachuted into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article to add a tag to the top of it and to remove an image and reverted its restoration twice (here and here) (the subject of this report).

They also visited that article's talkpage to support a call from another editor to remove content about England from the article and to raise a thread attacking me (starting "Consensus broken by User:DeFacto:" here), alleging I had broken a consensus by adding views to the discussion. They followed up that latter attack on my own talkpage here, but failed to supply any evidence of the allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * from editing COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Blusocksblu reported by 2607:7B00:3300:0:0:0:0:218 (Result: Blocked, Page protected)
User:Blusocksblu is clearly Daniel D. Reitberg hiding under multiple different usernames to scrub his name from the article. Should also be banned for sockpuppetry. Vandalism...
 * User being reported:
 * Page:
 * – Indef per Sockpuppet investigations/WowWashington, and page protected for 2 days by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AmorDoctrinaeFloreat reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 03:26, 20 May 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) : Undid revision 957709794 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)
 * 2) : Revert back to 5 paragraphs of text that was arbitrarily deleted for for unfounded reasons.
 * 3) : (No edit summary)
 * 4) : content, grammar and references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alison_Roman

Comments:

Warned by multiple users on talk page but continued reverting afterwards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion being had on Talk Page. Just arbirtary deletion of the final edit I made as per the suggestions of user Dink. The edit has been parsed down to two paragraphs with modified language for heightened neutrality. User Random Canadian has not been party to any constructive discussion to improve the article. Random Canadian is using own distaste for media to make conclusions about the relevance of the editsa, which is impertinent to improving the article.AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't try reading into the minds of others. What I said was that the issue was being blown out of proportion by the media, and that is exactly what I meant (the little parenthetical was a silly comment to keep this in a good mood, but obviously it was misunderstood). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Lucius Corin reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 03:26, 20 May 2020

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

Personal attacks on my talk page:
 * 1) First
 * 2) Second

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019–20 Western Libya offensive

Comments:

The 3RR is not the only thing I want to report also, the agresive bahaviour and the insults too.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * imagine dictating a wikipedia page, altering and removing everything i said with proof, confronted you about it and now you're playing victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Corin (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mr.User200: I don't see a violation of 3RR here, nor do I see a revert my the reported editor after you left the 3RR warning. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, still I want to report the personal attacks.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see you'd commented. You're welcome to change my actions if you like as the first responding admin.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No objections. I was engaging with the reported editor at my talk page. I was suggesting that they self-revert and engage in discussion on the talk page. I've now told them that's their only option for updating the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mcphurphy reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:NOCON says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." arsi's edit was the bold edit and since we have a dispute we should retain the version of the article as it was before his edit"
 * 2)  "No this content has been around for a while now, so its those who wish to remove it who will need to obtain consensus for it."
 * 3)  "I would recommend you go through the cited sources before making blanket reverts. thank you"
 * 4)  "reverting Arsi786's unexplained deletions of sourced content"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has reverted multiple editors and broke 3rr. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I only saw the edit war notice where Sharabsalam explained the 3RR restrictions to me after I had already made that 3rd revert. That is why I have self-reverted now. However, I would just like to say that WP:NOCON states that in case of a content dispute the version of the article as it was before the dispute arose should be retained. And the dispute started from Arsi786's bold edit on 18 May. The content I had been restoring had been there uncontested for more than one month. So it really should be my friends who should obtain consensus for reverting back to Arsi786's bold edit. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One month is NOT a long period of time.! You are the one who should seek consensus.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But the dispute only began two days ago. In view of that, the pre-18 May version was the longstanding version therefore the onus is on those who want the post-18 May version of the article to obtain consensus for the removal. Nevertheless, I have self reverted to comply with wikipedia policy Mcphurphy (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You added a content one month ago. It was disputed 2 days ago and you kept reverting since 2 days. You should not reinstate your edit after you got reverted by three editors. You have even broke the 3RR. This is the editwarring that you should be sanctioned for.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already reverted myself after you informed me about the 3RR rule. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you self-reverted after I reported you. I informed you at 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and you made a fourth revert at 04:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and I reported you at 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and you self-reverted at 04:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC). Clearly it wasn't the warning that I sent you, it was the report.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I self-reverted after the report. But I told you at 04:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC) that I had just seen and noted your warning. That was after I made the fourth revert at 04:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC). I was prepared to self-revert but during that time I was busy editing my original reply to you on my talk-page. When you reported me I was still editig my reply at 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcphurphy (talk • contribs)
 * So you made the fourth revert after 4 mins from when you got warned. You didn't notice the warning that time? Oh and I reported you after 4 mins and you waited 5 mins and then self-revert. I find it hard to believe that you didn't notice the warning during that time.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to add, Mcphurphy has been adding highly inflammatory content to the article. Part of the content alleged that Islam condones rape. This is obviously false (and most Muslims do not believe in rape) as user has cherrypicked from sources to push that claim. I honestly wish the user would discuss before adding such WP:REDFLAG content.VR talk  07:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have only been adding sourced and verifiable content. And I have been proving the verifiability of my content on the talkpage by quoting the source materials, sentence by sentence. These are content disputes which should not be raised here. I am trying very patiently to resolve these content disputes in a civil and respectable manner on the talkpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcphurphy (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mcphurphy is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Rape in Islamic law unless they have first obtained consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Bcliot33 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 957456377 by JzG (talk) "Undiscussed" ?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 957329952 by Grayfell (talk) In the paragraph above about history of communism E. Bernstein and his view is cited. There is also a Lenin's quote below. Why can't Marx have his view about the history of communism shared?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 957317558 by TimothyBlue (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 957315063 by TimothyBlue (talk) Do not delete the addition. Put some warning on the lack of the source first. We are on topic "History of communism""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 957312452 by Grayfell (talk) It is a primary source and on topic, please do not delete contributions."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2020 */  Again."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit waring */ new section"


 * Comments:

This is the second time I've warned Bcliot33 against edit warring this month (the other incident being three reverts to Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)). Bcliot33 blanks most user talk page comments, and almost never posts to any talk page.

This specific edit is controversial and should be discussed on a talk page, not in edit summaries. This appears to be part of a pattern of strange, inappropriate edits, but until this editor is willing to post to talk pages, there isn't going to be any way to discuss these issues. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"This specific edit is controversial and should be discussed on a talk page" it isn't. It's plain and simple just like E. Bernstein and Lenin quote on the article this one is also a great contribution to the history of communism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcliot33 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. The user is very keen on having his new content about the Cercle social remain in the article but has never used the talk page to get support from others. Reverting is not very effective as a tool of persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - Bcliot33 has continued edit war after block expired.   // Timothy ::  talk  09:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Core2012 reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Core2012 blocked 31h)
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:

Simply no attempt by the editor to respond. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Agreed, no attempt to engage, removal is explicitly stated in edit summaries to be based on the editor's personal view rather than on published sources. Guy (help!) 10:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mcphurphy reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The user has basically reverted this edit,(05:16, May 20, 2020) in full twice and in part twice (for a total of 4 times) in less than 3 hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:50, May 21, 2020, a full revert
 * 2) 08:22, May 21, 2020, a full revert
 * 3) 09:57, May 21, 2020, a partial revert where the user removes the quote by Imam Shafi that was introduced in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit and re-introduces back some material that was removed in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit.
 * 4) 10:02, May 21, 2020, a partial revert where the user removes the sentence "While Islam strongly discouraged the practice of slavery, it did not prohibit slavery". This sentence was inserted in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit. The user had removed it in the two full reverts above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:28, May 21, 2020. In addition, this user was reported for violating 3RR just yesterday for which he was warned a mere 8 hours ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:29, May 20, 2020, 07:31, May 20, 2020, 02:20, May 20, 2020 etc.

Comments: Mcphurphy has also been trying to change the title of the article to "Sexual slavery in Islam" over repeated objections from 3 users (Arsi786, SharabSalam and myself) on the talk page. Mcphurphy has engaged in very contentious editing on Concubinage in Islam and Rape in Islamic law. For the latter article, Mcphurphy violated 3rr yesterday was reported and then warned. The user does engage on the talk page, which is good, but shouldn't simply keep edit-warring.

VR talk  10:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * VR did 2 full reverts. This was after I left a message on the talkpage saying that we need to keep the last stable version until the dispute is resolved. But Vice regent keeps on bringing back the new version without consensus.


 * I didn't want to edit war so I stopped with the wholesale reverting. But I noticed that Vice regent was still editing even after they did 2 reverts so I also made edits on that page. I thought if he can continue editing that page it would also be allowed for me. I am sorry if I did break the rule (it was a grey area and its not clear to me yet what falls under 3RR) and I am prepared to self-revert but I didn't understand why Vice regent thinks he can continue editing there after 2 reverts but I can't? I asked him on my talkpage to clarify why but he didn't reply. Instead he went and filed this report. And he only explained to me after he filed this report.


 * And I have also shown the verifiability of every single sentence which was being removed. Vice regent has not engaged with most of it and has only engaged on one of the sentences (out of the dozens). After Vice regent replied to that I responded to that reply. Yet they still kept on doing wholesale removal of everything. In fact, despite my repeated requests to them to engage on the talkpage, they kept on making more edits to the disputed artice while the content dispute was still on the talkpage.


 * I also did not do any edit war on Rape in Islamic law. I tried to engage Vice regent on the talkpage there too but he still has not responded there yet. I also left him a mesaage on his talkpage earlier asking him to engage on Talk:Rape in Islamic law. He only considered my request after filing this report against me. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I warned you on your talk page before you passed the 3rr threshold, yet you kept making partial reverts anyway.VR talk  11:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You warned me at 10:03, which is the same minute my last edit on that page was saved in I did not make any more edits on that page after I saw your message (around 10:04).
 * As for the message you gave me at 08:28 I did not understand it then because you yourself had made two whole reverts just before giving me that message. So I became confused. I thought what was allowed for you would also be allowed for me. And most of all, I did not know that my later edits counted as "partial reverts." I thought they counted as regular edits just like your later edits on that page. You were also continuing to make contentious edits on the article despite my repeated requests on the talkpage that you and others abstain from more editing until we have resolved our content disputes. Isn't that disruptive? Mcphurphy (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The full protection I have applied to this article is in lieu of blocking you both, as you are both edit-warring and both have low numbers of edits in total, all or mostly centred around this or reelated topics. Guy (help!) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sasan Hero and User:AttilaAkay reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I’m not sure if one user is reverting vandalism or not, but 3RR has been breached by both users. – 2 . O . Boxing  21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment 3RR may have been breached by both of them, but was reverting to the status quo version while  was editing against WP:ONUS and WP:EW. Also, does not seem to have any problem with not assuming good faith and attacking other editors : . ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the Turkish name of it. They also have Turkic origins, and I do respect your values. I politely asked Sasan Hero why he is reversing my edit. Why are you so impatient against a correction? AttilaAkay (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As I write this, the article is in its status quo ante condition. Neither of you should revert the page again. You're both editing in good faith, so there is no exemption to 3RR that applies. Please discuss the matter at the talk page and work toward a consensus about what changes, if any, should be made to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AttilaAkay reported by User:Sasan Hero
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I'm only tried to revert vandalism that user AttilaAkay started ,please check page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasan Hero (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made this report a subsection of the one above it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Sasan Hero and User:AttilaAkay are both warned. Each of them is risking a block if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:MetricoGeo reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: Blocked as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: last consensus version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (by an IP, but refers to "my edit")
 * 5)  (same IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (and, earlier, warned on their Talk page by )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see also  by  and  by, who engaged in good faith to no avail)

Comments:

Edit-warring to promote non-notable work by a fringe figure on the article about squaring the circle &mdash; shocking, I know. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * has protected the page and given warnings about edit warring and personal attacks. Concerns were also raised at the Talk page about sockpuppetry, but I guess that's a different noticeboard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:MetricoGeo has been warned on their talk page. If the behavior does not improve they may not be here much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They seem to be persisting. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:81.98.102.174 reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

What the heck? how many things to follow if announcing vandalism....Help!!!! Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

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

Comments:


 * – 31 hours by for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Balolay reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 958178630 by SharabSalam (talk) What disputed content. The info is factual and welk sourced. However, you are more than welcome to open a discussion on the talk page regarding the points you think are non factual"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 958177043 by SharabSalam (talk) The sources are authentic and I just reworded a few sentences. Just because an image wasn't here doesn't mean you can add it here"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 957893768 by SharabSalam (talk) The changes are well sourced. Do look into them before making any reverts"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 957893496 by SharabSalam (talk) The image is from Sultanate of Zanzibar whose official religion was Islam"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 957893496 by SharabSalam (talk) The image is from Sultanate of Zanzibar whose official religion was Islam"


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


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


 * Comments:

The editor is removing content without an explanation and adding content from unreliable source which from the independent voices which actually even doesn't support his assertion. The status quo version should be maintained until there is consensus or at least reason to remove content or to add the picture. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I urge User:SharabSalam to tell me which one of this is non-factual. Wikipedia articles are not fixed in time and editors are allowed to make changes as long as they are factual. Thanks Balolay (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I invite User:SharabSalam to explain which information that I added is non-factual? And can he/she elaborate about what it means to be an "independent voice" in terms of sources? Because using his/her logic half of the Wikipedia content is invalid. Just because the info doesn't align with his/her views doesn't mean it's not factual. Here are the things add I added, nothing of which was my POV :
 * Slavery existing in pre-Islamic Arabia : Fact
 * Muhammad owned slaves : Fact
 * Muhammad didn't abolish slavery and recognized it as an institution : Fact
 * Muhammad urged his followers to treat slaves more humanely : Fact
 * Islam allows sexual relations with female slaves : Fact
 * Clearly you are pushing a point of view. Please read WP:BRD and WP:QUO. Your "facts" which are not reliabily sourced can't be added. Also, removing content without explaining why is unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad did discourage slavery and that was significant during that time when slavery was a business in almost all kingdoms and empires. I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. You are clearly here to pushing POV. Also, the Independent "voices" section is not reliable. -- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:SharabSalam the explanation you gave points towards your own inherent bias it's you who has a particular POV either consciously or subconsciously. You said Prophet Muhammad did discourage slavery and that was significant during that time when slavery was a business in almost all kingdoms and empires. If by discouraging slavery means asking followers to treat slaves more humanely and banning enslavement of other Muslims then I agree with you. However, it is also a fact that Muhammad owned slaves and recognised slavery as an institution. This is relevant to the article too and you can't deny or undermine it.

Furthermore, I want you to explain what do you mean by the term "independent source" and elaborate exactly which material I deleted? I just reworded the lead Paragraph.Balolay (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When you get reverted you should seek consensus per WP:BRD and WP:QUO. We use consensus building not editwarring to insert content. The Independent, voices section is not a reliable source. Its like a blog. Also, your facts are not sourced by the sources. And you added in the article that "Muhammad (himself a slave owner)" never made an intention to abolish slavery based on no source except your so-called facts. Clearly who is pushing a point of view here. You also didnt explain your removal of sourced content like "However, this was an exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labor in the medieval Islamic world consisted of free, paid labour."
 * I also remember as an example of your POV-pushing your addition in the lead to "Islam in New Zealand" that there are muslims who expressed support for ISIS during the Christchurch mosque shootings. You used an isolated incident just to put that in the lead and to blame the victim. You also kept editwarring adding it and even here using your IP which sockpuppetery BTW -- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I can gather from the discussion here is that SharʿabSalam▼  is conflating the Islamic perspective on slavery with the neutral perspective that the article deserves. Muhammad indeed owned slaves and allowed slavery while limiting its scope to some extent. Therefore the lead needs to remain straightforward in regards to Islamic views on slavery. Furthermore, the sources provided by Balolay are well reputed and probably copied from here. Regards RandiGashti (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I swear to Allah 10 times that this editor is a sockpuppet of Baloley. I will launch a sockpuppet investigation soon.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You said "I also remember as an example of your POV-pushing your addition in the lead to "Islam in New Zealand" that there are muslims who expressed support for ISIS during the Christchurch mosque shootings." I don't think that amounted to POV but time and place of the info was indeed wrong. That's why I accepted the removal of that content. However, you can't use some past examples to revert my valid contributions!Balolay (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said "And you added in the article that "Muhammad (himself a slave owner)" never made an intention to abolish slavery". Muhammad owned slaves and he didn't abolish slavery that's a fact! He saw it as part of the natural order of the things as mentioned in the source. Giving some rights to the slaves doesn't amount to abolishing the practice.
 * you said "I swear to Allah 10 times that this editor is a sockpuppet of Baloley. I will launch a sockpuppet investigation soon" lol are you serious just because someone doesn't agree with you there is something wrong with them. You are very welcome to launch an investigation. I hope editors take notice of your "swearing to Allah" which clearly shows that you are biased in regards to islamic articles. How can we expect any thing neutral from you?Balolay (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay RandiGashti . I am just fasting right now and I am so tired. I will definitely launch a SPI or e-mail a checkuser when I am not busy. You are clearly using a sockpuppet and this is probably not your only sockpuppet.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please dont close this thread now. I have already emailed a checkuser.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Balolay is blocked for sockpuppets.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – The sockmaster, User:Balolay is blocked 1 week by User:NinjaRobotPirate. The sock, User:RandiGashti, is blocked indef. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Тутуноберач reported by User:StanProg (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is a section at the talk page Talk:Yane_Sandanski, but it's quite unproductive and one-sided.

Comments: A just-registered contributor went on a rampage. Unfortunately the warning and the discussion could not calm him down. --StanProg (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: It appears has  for 31 hours. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Guy9408 and User:80.42.60.47 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Continuing as an IP 80.42.60.47
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Seems to be a single purpose editor, probably the same guy as was making the same edit in the recent past using IPs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And the same guy just continuing indefinitely. Ten reverts and counting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. If there is still a dispute about who is recognized as the 'greatest Formula One driver' why not open a thread at the talk page and provide your sources for review. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is what I asked him to do, but he preferred to revert eleven times – the only damn edits the guy has ever made. How is this guy not blocked? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kinsu08 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Partially Blocked 48 Hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (note that this edit war involved multiple people, so this link refers to when Geography of Nepal was semi-protected.

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: I am not part of this dispute, but note that discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal

Comments:

This user is also reverting at and. CMD (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (partially) 331dot (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Honduras200010 reported by User:IamNotU (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/958253147/958253240

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: --IamNotU (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:The Swamp Creature reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first revert
 * 2) second revert
 * 3) third revert
 * 4) fourth revert
 * 5) fifth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (also several warnings in edit summaries)

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

Comments:

Editor is continuing to revert, despite edit warring warnings and requests to discuss on the talk page. They did create a section on the talk page, but are continuing to revert rather than discuss. Note that page is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAPDS). Reporting rather than handling it myself per WP:INVOLVED—I wrote much of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This editor's behavior, and especially this comment, shows that this editor is here to WP:RGW, and isn't interested in Wikipedia as a project. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. One can imagine the next block to be indefinite, if the user continues--a charge of whitewashing is easy to prove here, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. Do you mind restoring the clean revision also? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Saxophilist reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Partial block from affected page for 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Scholar's name"
 * 2)  "WP:NPOV neutral statement"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 957927929 by Tgeorgescu (talk) WP:NPOV"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Fundamentalist POV */ WP:RNPOV"
 * 2)   "/* Fundamentalist POV */ quote offered"
 * 3)   "/* Neutrality */ WP:TE"
 * 4)   "/* Neutrality */ WP:CONSENSUS"
 * 5)   "/* Neutrality */ quote offered"
 * 6)   "/* Neutrality */ WP:FRINGE/PS"
 * 7)   "/* Neutrality */ not history"
 * 8)   "/* Neutrality */ indent"
 * 9)   "/* King Tgeorgescu */ as I told"
 * 10)   "/* Neutrality */ You do not make the call"
 * 11)   "/* Neutrality */ quote offered"
 * 12)   "/* King Tgeorgescu */ reply"


 * Comments:

The user is acting against WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. He has also been warned by. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller falsely accused me of personally attacking you on Talk:Nebuchadnezzar. I did no such thing and am currently awaiting his apology.
 * Do you report everyone you disagree with? Saxophilist (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I report anyone who breaks the WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your WP:BIAS is clear. You call people you disagree with "bigots", as we can read in your essay: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_bigots
 * Your disdain for others is extremely obvious. Saxophilist (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My disdain is obvious... for true believers which seek to ruin mainstream Bible scholarship articles at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your prejudice against Jews and Christians is shocking and abhorrent. Saxophilist (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with religious belief. I have a problem with editors which seek to ruin our articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously do have a problem with religious belief, as one of your goals is to stop religious people from editing religion pages. There are so many different articles you can "protect", yet you specifically chose religious articles. Saxophilist (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never prevented from editing anything and he has no problems with my edits. Oh, yes, he is Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * are you saying that you didn't start a section titled "King Tgeorgescu"? It's hard to see it as anything but a personal attack. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * seems to imply that liberal Christians, like Ian Thomson, are apostates. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you have no problems with Ian Thompson's edits, because, like you, he doesn't believe the Bible. Does Ian believe in the Trinity and the resurrection? Saxophilist (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * believe the Bible means different things for different people. It's like a dog-whistle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to @User:Ian.Thomson's page, he does not believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. What else does he disagree with? He also apparently supports zen and is interested in the occult. He is not a practicing Christian. Saxophilist (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the saying goes, "One man's religion is another man's laughing stock", but your attacks have to stop. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If believing in the Trinity and seeking salvation and redemption from the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and loving God and neighbor is not Christianity, then what is? It surely can't be hatred of minorities or being pompous about holding specific interpretations.  You have no right to tell everyone what I believe, and unless you're the one who was crucified for humanity you're in no position to decide what state my soul is in.  Stop making hyper-ignorant assumptions of me and cut out the personal attacks towards everybody -- that failure to show anything like grace or humility is why you're having such a hard time here.  Wikipedia's policies, particularly the neutral point of view policy and sourcing policies, are not just acceptable to Christianity, but (if you believe Christianity is true) to Christianity's advantage.  It's not that I don't believe the Bible, it's that I don't pretend to have the only divinely correct interpretation of it or anything else.  If you didn't know less-than-nothing about my edits, you'd know that my edits to occult articles is burning such works with literary criticism instead of fire.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked if you believe in the Trinity and resurrection. I never claimed you didn't. I was asking the question in order to find out whether you do or don't. Anyways, according to your page, you do not believe what the New Testament clearly says about homosexuality. Also, you claim to practice zen. Saxophilist (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I never made a judgement on the state of your soul and never said you were not a Christian. I purposefully chose my words very carefully. Go back and read what I wrote. Saxophilist (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You said I am not a practicing Christian. Those were your exact words, right above. I don't claim to practice Zen, I refer to myself as a Zen Baptist because it lets people know I'm not the sort of judgemental bigot who acts like he has the only correct interpretation of the Bible. I favor any interpretation that fits the Great Commandment and brings one closer to Christ (even for others when I don't hold that interpretation). Personally, after looking at the historical context (Sacred prostitution was dead common throughout the Mediterranean and Rome often used same-sex prostitutes; the early church fathers understood arsenokoites to mean Pederasty and this continued up to Luther translating it as Knabenschänder or "boy-molesters") it's pretty easy to read Romans 1:26-27 as condemning temple prostitution and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as condemning pederastry -- and this interpretation would be more loving to people who are by natural design homosexual. So don't say I don't believe what the Bible says about homosexuality, I just don't hold your teachings, which doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Theologians have been unanimous for almost 2000 years that gay sex is a sin. Your interpretation is relatively new and not based on legitimate theology, but is based on modern societal trends. Also, there has been no proof that same sex attraction is genetic. I'm attracted to members of the same sex myself, but I don't have gay sex. Being attracted to members of the same sex is not sinful, and people don't actively choose who they are attracted to. Gay sex, however, is a behavior that people can choose to do or choose not to do. It is not loving to tell me or others that gay sex is fine. Showing love would be sharing the Gospel and warning people of the consequences of sin. It's not loving to tell people it's ok to sin. The Bible is clear about sexual immorality, and Jesus says marriage is between one man and one woman. Saxophilist (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. This discussion is getting out of hand.  The point stands that you decided to attack someone you've never encountered and knew nothing about by saying I'm not a practicing Christian (based on your interpretation which idolatrously glorifies homophobia over sola fidae and hyper-ignorant assumptions), because Tgeorgescu not having a problem with me goes against your attacks on him.  Those attacks in turn were a result of you not displaying any grace or humility we're called to, nor even an apparent interest in cooperating with others that those outside the flock can manage.  Knock off this nonsense or get knocked off the site.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * it's not my interpretation. It's the infallible teaching of the Church founded by Christ Himself. Study what the early Christians believed. Sorry if you are indeed a practicing Christian. Reading about "a Zen Baptist who supports homosexuality", it's difficult not to jump to conclusions. Please accept my apology.Saxophilist (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Partially  from  Nebuchadnezzar II. Regardless of your position on an issue, the onus is on you to win a consensus on the talk page before reinstating edits that have been contested by other editors. Accusing other editors of having a vendetta against religious editors is a non-starter and may lead to further blocks in its own right if the accusations are baseless; even in the event that you are right about the accusations, turning the other cheek will lead to much better results. signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He does have a bias. You can read his own words here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_bigots Saxophilist (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated therein, WP:NOBIGOTS isn't new policy, it is long-standing practice. Therein I only made clear what those who have a WP:CLUE and admins have been doing for a long time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've said that people who believe Daniel actually existed do not belong on Wikipedia. Sounds like bias and bigotry to me. Saxophilist (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, my views don't align with the medical consensus upon abortion, but I'm not trolling that article with my POV. So, religious belief isn't an excuse to poo upon mainstream history. The same as you can't answer a chemistry exam asking "What is salt made of?" with "Godly particles." and expect to pass it. The gist: religious belief is not a free out of jail card for those who ruin historical articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't think the views of a particular religion are allowed on articles about that particular religion? Saxophilist (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit warring noticeboard is not the place to be having this discussion, and frankly, given how unlikely it is to result in anything productive to the encyclopedia, it doesn't belong anywhere else on Wikipedia either ( WP:NOTFORUM applies). Knock it off. signed,Rosguill talk 22:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nokia 1280 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 958481477 by 171.66.22.214 (talk) standardilized the article, dubious IP reverting"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 958477790 by MarkH21 (talk) milestone, explain why Le Loi revolt against the Ming"
 * 3)  "standardized the artice, remove the odds"
 * 4)  "remove nonenglish, fantasy paragraph"
 * 5)  "/* Thuận Thiên (Lê Lợi, 1428–1433) */"
 * 6)  "/* Law */"
 * 7)  "/* Entry of Christianity in Vietnam */"
 * 8)  "/* Background and founding */"
 * 9)  "/* Government */"
 * 10)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Government */"
 * 2)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Government */"
 * 2)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"
 * 1)  "/* Mạc Đăng Dung usurps the throne */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* English language and encyclopedic style */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* English language and encyclopedic style */ examples"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lê dynasty. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

3RR violation. New editor reverts copyediting and attempts at iterative improvement on their massive changes to the article. Attempted discussion on their talk page has gone unanswered. — MarkH21talk 02:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Querigin reported by 103.7.43.131 (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Suspected sockpuppet: User:Thanoscar21
 * I just want to defend myself here. If you look at my contribs and User:Querigin's contribs, it's clear that we're different people. Additionally, if you geolocate 103.7.43.131's IP, you can see that they have a COI. Additionally, they keep on blanking well sourced, cited material that they deem "racist". This is the second time in a week that someone has accused me of being racist. If any admins here see this, I'd appreciate it if they propose some sort of rule that blocks IPs from doing this. Thanks, Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He also filed a false report over here claiming I vandalized past four nonexistent warnings and am posting racism.Querigin (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Per above, I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG - this is clearly a disgruntled IP editor angry at the reverting editors. Cheers, -- puddleglum  2.0  00:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Filing IP blocked 48 hours for triggering the edit filter, including . This could be the same editor who was recently blocked for warring at Lê dynasty with two different IPs, Special:Contributions/45.117.160.99 and Special:Contributions/83.220.173.59. Both of them were blocked by User:GorillaWarfare. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:24.17.208.94 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Using a made-up term is not whataboutism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 958646524 by Galassi (talk) no explanation for revert, so it remains."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Whataboutism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See previously by others on user's talk page


 * Comments:

This IP is continuing the same edit war for which they were blocked just a few days ago - obviously the same person... This might not be a infrigement of the letter 3RR rule but it clearly ignores the spirit and is disruptive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: the editor has removed the AN/3RR notice from their talk page, in case you wonder where it's gone... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:24.17.208.94 has been warned (by me) about the edit warring. He came back and did it again.  The weasel worded: "Some have pointed to several instances..." where Trump used Whataboutism is a palpable cover-up and understatement of the highest degree.  Only on "FoxNews" (an oxymoron) would that 'analysis' see the light of day.  Further, the sources are to the contrary.  WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth should control. He won't take it to talk page, and continues to dig down the same ditch against consensus.  Ignores WP:BRD.  It is just WP:Disruptive. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:TWEETY4557 reported by User:Randompointofview (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent by Law until proven guilty.  This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits.  The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves."
 * 2)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent until proven guilty.  This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits.  The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves."
 * 3)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent by Law until proven guilty.  This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits.  The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves."
 * 4)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent until proven guilty.   This looks like a law suit for the people of Jackson!! This better be taken down!!!"
 * 5)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent until proven guilty.  This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits.  The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves."
 * 6)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent until proven guilty.   This looks like a law suit for the people of Jackson!! This better be taken down!!!"
 * 7)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ The town is innocent until proven guilty.   This looks like a law suit for the people of Jackson!! This better be taken down!!!"
 * 8)  "The town is innocent until proven guilty.   This looks like a law suit for the people of Jackson!! This better be taken down!!!"
 * 9)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ It is not true I live here whoever posted this, that's why there is problems its a bunch of lies.  Somebody is going to get sued is right and it's not Jackson Township."
 * 10)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ It is not true I live here whoever posted this, that's why there is problems its a bunch of lies.  Somebody is going to get sued is right and it's not Jackson Township."
 * 11)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */"
 * 1)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */ It is not true I live here whoever posted this, that's why there is problems its a bunch of lies.  Somebody is going to get sued is right and it's not Jackson Township."
 * 2)  "/* Orthodox Jewish community */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jackson Township, New Jersey. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Update"
 * 3)   "update"
 * 4)   "Warning: Making legal threats on Jackson Township, New Jersey. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Final warning"
 * 7)   "Explaination"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Potencial edit warring */  Peace attempt 1"
 * 2)   "Explaination"


 * Comments:

The user is making few attempts at peaceful discussion, refuses to provide sources for their reasoning, and violates multiple policies, including the legal threat policy. Randompointofview (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * blocked indef by Ohnoitsjamie.--Eostrix (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Giano reported by User:Geo Swan (Result:recommended for this to be stopped)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:06, 2020 May 22
 * 2) 16:36, 2020 May 22
 * 3) 03:21, 2020 May 23
 * 4) 14:52, 2020 May 23‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:04, 2020 May 22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:26, 2020 May 23

Comments:

I think the original unsigned and undated request the article go without an infobox was exceptional, that it required an explanation, required a signature, and should have been dated.

In his or her last comment, on the talk page, Giano seems to be asserting that I should have recognized that he or she was "the principal editor of this page", and that I should have deferred to them on that account. I think that is the opposite of what WP:OWN recommends. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately is not aware (enough) of MOS:INFOBOXUSE and of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. I suggest this report be closed, and that Geo Swan try to seek consensus on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an innocent question. What's wrong with having an infobox in this article? Is it because of its featured article status, that the infobox addition should be discussed on the talk page first?--Darwinek (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Darwinek, this is a long, long story. Essentially, there have been wars over infoboxes for a number of years now, and the link to the arbitration case I provided will be helpful in filling in that backstory. What it boils down to, right now, is this: there is an uneasy truce, which says, pretty much, there needs to be agreement on the talk page before an article that doesn't have an infobox gets one, and that the wishes of the creator of the article need to be respected. Does that help? Editors have been blocked, families have broken up, friendships were destroyed, and the edit warring left the cities and fields burned and destroyed. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems a fairly straight forward 4RR. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Geo Swan is very well aware of the endless prior infobox discussions. There are better ways we can work to improve the site than by trying to reopen this absolute time sink. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , your mind-reading hat is on the fritz. Those discussions happened on parts of the wikipedia where I wasn't working, and I did not learn of the ARB decision until it was linked to above.


 * I just checked my contribution history. Over the last year I added about 4 dozen infoboxes to BLPs, without being aware that there was any question as to whether doing so held value.


 * Of course, that no one challenged any of the other infoboxen I added does not over-ride an ARB decision. What I suggest it does mean is that while the past discussions over infoboxen might seem to make the concerns I raised today seem like a terrible and annoying time-sink to some people weighing in here, for 95+ percent of contributors the controversy flew under the radar, and the addition of infoboxen seems routine.


 * If someone wrote a brief summary of whatever issues were raised in the apparently contentious discussions that triggered the ARB decision, I'd appreciate a link to it. Geo Swan (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Very happy to assume good faith. Now that you are aware, can you withdraw this. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as a result of the last infobox Arb case, I wrote an essay at User:RexxS/Infobox factors where I collected together as many factors as I could find that affected the decision on whether an article should have an infobox. It's an unfinished work, but you may find it helpful if you are adding large numbers of infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No I did read them, which is why I explained how they were in fact followed. The whole first mover and free pass thing is not a reason to give a pass on violating 3RR, which again is the only thing that has been violated here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan's first bunch of edits just removed a very clear notice "PLEASE DO NOT ADD AN INFO BOX TO THIS PAGE.-->" and did just that, without any prior discussion. WP:BOOMERANG applies. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well they started a discussion here and then a few hours later added it here. So that is inaccurate and unrelated to 3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd missed that. Also that the article is an FA. But waiting 3 hrs before  proceeding is not reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like to see a day or so personally to give anyone a chance to respond. Though I will say it is good practice to follow notes like that, they are not binding. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While such notes are not binding, the fact that this one had been in place for over a decade demonstrates a rather long-standing status quo, and deliberately ignoring one (with such a paltry time for responses) is equally if not more culpable. The fact that a talk page thread was open should have meant no-one should have tried to overturn the status quo (and yes, Geo Swan, I'm pointing the finger at you for pushing the point of continuing to revert when you shouldn't as well). Given this is an FA, where (per WP:FAOWN), "it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first", is it really right to look at imposing a block on Giano here when other guidelines and processes have been ignored? As the reverting is all over (none for over 14 hours at the time of posting), I think this is probably stale enough to close, with certainly a warning to Geo Swan about disruptive editing. – SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I gotta ask, what other guidelines and processes were ignored? The only one I can see being ignored is 3RR by Giano yet again. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones I’ve linked in my posts. I’ll repost them all together if you wish, but they’re already outlined. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just making sure, because those are not violations of guidelines or processes that I can see. Which is why I was asking. From what I can see they went to the talk page, opened a discussion about it, waited (not long enough in my opinion but still waited), and then made the change. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you didn’t actually read the linked pages then. Sure. I get you don’t agree, but the fact that one party is culpable of sub-standard actions in playing the ‘edit first to win the 3RR war’ does not mean they get a free pass. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously you haven’t read too closely, as 3RR certainly isn’t the only thing that was violated. BRD and FAOWN are both there too, if you’d like to reconsider. - SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, WP:FAOWN is the relevant policy here,  which GeoSwann was edit-warring against: the WP:ONUS is on them to achieve a major change to an article that has previously undergone collective peer review through a talk page consensus. Cheers,  09:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to block only one editor when two have been edit warring. I do not know when "PLEASE DO NOT ADD AN INFO BOX TO THIS PAGE" was added, but here is a permalink from November 2016 which contains the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The note was added in April 2008; when the article passed FAC the previous year there was no IB in place at that time either. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that, unless a solid consensus for its addition can be pointed to,  I've never really seen the point of hidden notes: without a pre-established consensus, they're without a basis in policy. Which means people can just ignore them...  ——  Serial # 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, such notes do count for nothing, but they do serve to flag that adding an infobox without discussion may be a bad idea. Furthermore, declaring me ten years dead and then giving me three hours for full resurrection was another bad idea. Even Christ has been allowed a little longer for the Second Coming. Anyhow, I’m sure you are all delighted to know that I am in fine health and intend to remain so. Finally, GeoSwans post here: For the record, my name ends on an “O” that is masculine. I was born a boy, baptised with a male name and the last time I checked, I was still male. So I am quite happy to be a “he.”  Giano    (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Leave the infoboxes for the bios of politicians & sports figures, of which Arbuthnot is neither. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page, this is for edit warring not your thoughts on infoboxes in general. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to erase my 11:51 post. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This was not edit warring, it was reverting an editor who had alighted suddenly on an article and decided on a whim to add an infobox. So long as there are infoboxes there will be bigger and bigger problems because the boxes are becoming bigger themselves, of unwarranted length containing all manner of trivia. Just look at that of Mrs Arbuthnott’s wretched husband Charles Arbuthnot. In reality, notable today only for being her husband, all that monarch and succeeded and preceded rubbish. I’m surprised it doesn’t give the date he lost his virginity and who had preceded him with the girl in question. Time to put a limit on these horrible things. Giano    (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats easy then because I am always very decorous, even when discussing info boxes, but they need severely curtailing. I have been saying this for years and no one listens. Soon there won’t be room on the page for any further information. Date lost first tooth, date first flushed a loo unaided, type of wood used for coffin - where’s it going to end? Giano    (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, I am just repeating what ArbCom said on the subject. This is not the place to wax-poetic on the nature of infoboxes as a whole. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well! If you ask me, Arbcom didn’t say enough on the subject. They should have confined the foul things to the bare basics. Births, marriages and deaths. Any more and one is getting into the realms of self-indulgence and taking away the need to have an article at all. I despair of the Arbcom, I really do. They should have had me as an Arb when they had the chance; we wouldn’t have half these problems. Giano    (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * point of order - can I repeat that the request in question was (1) unsigned; (2) undated; and (3) unexplained? When I checked the revision history to determine who left it.  What I found was that it had been left by a contributor, who, after a series of blocks, made their last edit in 2009.  Once I determined the  (1) unsigned; (2) undated; and (3) unexplained request had been left in 2008 by a contributor who left the project in 2009, it seemed to me I did not have an obligation to wait for them to return to the talk page to explain their request.
 * WRT FAOWN - I never heard of it, until you linked to it here, today. I don't concentrate on taking articles to good article or featured article status.  I was unaware that a discrete star in the upper right corner marked this as a featured article.  I was unaware special rules applied to featured articles, special sanctions applied to featured articles.
 * There is clever code that shows an advisory note above the edit box when we edit BLP. I am going to suggest the take-away from this discussion is that, if there are going to be special rules that apply when editing featured articles, similar clever code should show an advisory above the edit box.
 * I left my note, informing Giano that I thought their second reversion, without meaningful explanation, could be considered an instance of edit-warring. This was not a trick, or a game, I honestly thought they had an obligation to explain their reversions. You left a note, on my user talk page, and I will be sure to take a good look at the links supplied there.  I have been here a long time, have placed infoboxes on many, many articles, all without ever learning that the application of infoboxes was controversial, and required prior discussion.  Our policies are extremely complicated, and are in a constant state of flux.  This ARB ruling is recent, and I would like to be forgiven for not being aware of it.
 * If you meant to suggest I was some kind of gameplayer, who routinely tried to race the other guy, to trick them into making the fourth reversion, I think if you check the revision history of this board you will find this is the very first time I initiated a 3RR discussion. A few years ago an administrator at the semi-protected board, did accuse me of lapsing from, or skating near, 3RR, without recognizing that I was reversing the vandalism of a known wikistalker.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to properly sign and date such posts, and I’ve never seen a hidden note that is signed and dated. The fact is there should have given you a point to pause and consider matters (and when I say “pause”, I don’t mean the three hours you left it, but a minimum of 24 hours, and preferably a week, for courtesy. Although you may have not known Giano also had Giano2 as a user Name, then you have to give the page watchers a chance to respond - that’s for any article, but particularly an FA. There is no need for any “clever code”, the notice and some patience was all that was needed. We shall not know now, but I suspect you would have received a response within 24 hours from someone who was watching the page. You say that Giano’s response did not have “meaningful explanation“ (from the context this looks like you mean their edit summary, rather than talk page?) but that still doesn’t mean you have the right to edit war. Your addition of the IB was with the edit summary “infobox”; it explains what you’ve done, but not why, which is what it is supposed to do. Giano’s revert was with the much more explanatory “No infobox required. All relevant information and more is simply available in the lead paragraph - as it should be.” Now, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not, but it is a valid opinion given to revert to the long-standing status quo. That’s the point where all reverts stopped and the discussion continued – that’s exactly what WP:BRD advises us to do, and where the matter should have remained. I just don’t understand why you thought you should revert against a 13-year status quo, when an explanatory comment has been left and the talk page thread has already been opened. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going to go practice improving content somewhere and not hang around cesspits? PackMecEng (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinged: I responded. I’d prefer to carry on writing stuff now, but occasionally I have to scratch an irritant. - 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Result: Ok, by now all the participants must have learned that (i) insertion of infoboxes requires consensus and must follow the WP:BRD cucle; (ii) making four reverts is not ok, with the exception of obvious vandalism and BLP violations, none of which is insertion of infoboxes. Let us stop here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a result? If there is, I must be in ignorance of it. Do we have an agreement to stop drive-by “editors” stopping by for three hours and then imposing so monstrous infobox on a perfectly innocent page? It would be nice to think so. Declaring me dead, when just clicking on my name would have brought one straight to my lair, is inexcusable. This GeoSwan person/he/she/it needs to be banned for the good of the project. Giano    (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * May I thank everyone who made a serious effort in their responses here? Thanks!  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone doubts what I’m saying about the ridiculous and absurd length that infoboxes are now assuming, just take a look at Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. I hate to think what poor Margaret Thatcher must have; it’s barking mad. Giano    (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tomica reported by User:Alexismata7 (Result:)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "→‎Fashion: famous people do not model on magazine covers, they are included with a story"


 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 958578423 by Chrisnait (talk): Far from encyclopedic content; discuss it on the talk page of the article first. She is far from a model (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I do not know if this is the right place but I make this complaint to avoid a war of editions and to someone review the case. The user wants to impose his opinion and despite the fact that I gave him references, he did not agree to return the information that he deleted. I kindly asked the user to return the information, but he always declined. I want to emphasize that this is not a claim to put the word "model" in the article introduction, what I am soliciting is that the information I put in the "fashion" section was deleted and must be returned because it has encyclopedic relevance. The user suggested consensus building, but consensus in this case is not an option because encyclopedic relevance is not negotiable. I do not want to extend me much in this text, the user turned a deaf ear to the references that I quoted him and it is a behavior that harms my collaboration in the encyclopedia. When I finally gave a good proof that the information I put in is encyclopedic and I gave him an example of a good article, the user did not respond again. In conclusion, this discussion is essential to understand the case and that some administrator take the respective actions, I am not asking to block the user. This page is called "edit warring" and I'm here to avoid one. Alexismata7 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if doesn't respond to your comment on the article talk page, you can add your comment per WP:SILENCE; I think you've proved your point and the fact that they have not responded solidifies your position. Cheers, --  puddleglum  2.0  00:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, they proved a point? This user, as he says is clearly new. He/she added information, which is WP:TABLOID at its best, and also tried to portray Dua Lipa as a model (which she is not), based on magazine covers? So, naturally, I removed that and then they came on my talk page, we talked and I explained to them what things we do/don't add on bio Wiki pages, but despite that, he/she again, re-added the information in the article. I again reverted yes, because prior that, I told him to open a discussion on the article's talk page, so other users involved in the singer's project can discuss it prior to its inclusion. (Just to note, no one else except his user, reverted me, when I removed a bunch of fluff and non-encyclopedic stuff). Also, treating me like I didn't answer when they didn't even notify me on the talk page? This is crazy! — Tom (T2ME) 09:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You do not have to emphasize that I am new because when it comes to having a dispute that it does not make you have the default reason. I definitely proved the point with sources, and I will not search consensus on encyclopedic relevance because that is not negotiable. Also, I will not write you any more texts proving my reason for you then to imposing your opinion more than justice. The request is clear, that you return the information that you deleted from the section or I will go to other instances. Already at least one external user to this realized this. Alexismata7 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2020
 * First of all, it's you who said that you were new and you didn't know where to go in order to ask for help, so don't try to pin that on me. Yes, when someone reverts you for a reason, you go on the talk page of the article or the Wikiproject (Dua Lipa does have one) and discuss it before re-adding it again. Obviously, no one else (except you) reverted back my edits, meaning people do not agree with you automatically on that "proved point content" you are trying to add. You can source as many magazine covers as you want, but my opinion is that Dua is not a model or a fashion designer. She is a singer and (possibly) songwriter. That's it. If there's a talk-page consensus for adding the other nouns they should be added. Prior to that, I am not reverting that edit. — Tom (T2ME) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already stopped requesting that the word "model" be placed in the introduction, that can be discussed later. The central point of the complaint is that you return the information that you deleted from the "fashion" section whose information has encyclopedic relevance like the good article of Gisele Bündchen, which I proved to you here. I guess you will ignore that too. Alexismata7 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020
 * How exactly are those covers relevant to Dua's career tell me? I can understand why they are included on Gisele's page, she indeed is a model, unlike Dua, and haven't done a lot of other things during her career. I am not adding anything back since I don't agree with it. You can add it back, but I still think that's content not relevant to Dua's major career which is singing. — Tom (T2ME) 14:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you delete it because you think it is not relevant to Dua Lipa article? That is your opinion. The content is encyclopedic and you eliminated it, the subject of editorial modeling is relevant in itself because is within the fashion environment and I already demonstrated it to you. If Gisele Bündchen article can have the information that appeared in 3,500 magazine editorials, then Lipa also because it is the same modeling job ... I am claiming encyclopedic content, I am not imposing opinions as someone. Alexismata7 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020
 * This is not the place to be discussing this. The content was disputed and instead of discussing it on the talk page, you readded it. You even added it again after making this comment, knowing very well that it has been disputed. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 16:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, this kind of edits need to be approved by the users of their respective pages. You just don't go around editing other users' pages. — Tom (T2ME) 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Alexismata7 has been blocked (and remains blocked) on their home Wiki for 3RR violations as well as on Commons for disruption. I sincerely hope that their response to those blocks was not to bring the same disputes and cause the same disruption here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:184.103.209.197 reported by User:Ward20 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to warn Anon editor about WP:OR and Edit warring on Anon talk page throughout reversions:

After cleanup for WP:OR and WP:RS added by User:184.101.241.100, new User:184.103.209.197 manually restores material and then reverts 3 more times. Comprehensive edit summaries were used initially by editors to explain to anon why their edits were reverted. Two WP:OR warnings and one Edit warring policy warning put on anon's talk page before fourth revert by anon. List of mass hysteria cases has had a history of this same material being added from similar IP addresses this month. Ward20 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:172.91.101.93 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */  please stop making edits to this page. this page is a wikipedia page about ME. I know what is true and what is not. if you make another edit I will ask Wikipedia to block you."
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */  page is about ME I am Adam Kaufman I'm editing these lies that are on this page do not put them back"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 5)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */"

See
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This IP user is doing section blanking leading to a kind of edit war and also threatening to take action if anyone tries to revert vandalism as evident from last recent edit summary ~Amkgp ✉  20:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

See also here: The IP is asking me to stop reverting his/her edits, but when I politely ask the IP to tell me how they can prove that they are Kaufman, they just reply with "stop changing my edits". I don't seem to be the only one who thinks that there is something wrong; and  also seem to agree. --Stay safe, ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just left the IP a longer message about what to do about his conflict of interest and his claim of being the subject. Accordingly, I'm waiting on administrative action until I see his next edit. I've added the article to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:8804:1000:A9F:8076:9B5A:D243:FD6E reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Episodes */It does belong!  It is a crossover episode between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", so it does belong!"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */Would you just stop deleting this?!  This needs to go in here!  And I told you enough why it needs to go in here, so stop it!"
 * 3)  "/* Episodes */I'm telling you for the last time that this needs to go in here.  This is a crossover special between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", so that's why it needs to go in here.  I don't care what the sources say.  They need to update their data by adding in the episode.  But I am telling you it needs to go in here.  It is in the "List of The Loud House episodes" article and it needs to go in here also."
 * 4)  "/* Episodes */I am going to keep on adding this in here after you editors delete this until y'all understand that this is a crossover episode between "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes."  It makes sense that it appears in the "List of The Loud House episodes" article and this article since it's a crossover episode.  And I know it is a crossover episode because I watched a commercial of the special and they said this was a crossover episode between the 2 shows.  So, please, leave it alone...."
 * 5)  "/* Episodes */No, you need this in here.  It's in the List of the loud house episodes article and you need it in here also.  The reason why it is in both articles is because it's a crossover special between "The Loud House" and its respective spinoff, "The Casagrandes".  That's why you need it in here and in the other article.  If this didn't air, then yes, you wouldn't need it in both articles.  You wouldn't need it at all.  But because it aired, you need it in both articles.  You really nee..."
 * 6)  "/* Episodes */Since this is a crossover of "The Loud House" and "The Casagrandes", I decided to add in the special that aired tonight."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked for 72 hours. They've been edit warring across this range (and likely others) for long enough.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:DJTonyPrep reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:10, May 22, 2020
 * 2) 14:40, May 22, 2020
 * 3) 01:33, May 23, 2020
 * 4) 04:03, May 23, 2020
 * 5) 04:16, May 23, 2020
 * 6) 14:02, May 23, 2020
 * 7) 14:07, May 24, 2020
 * 8) 11:03, May 26, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) editor YoungForever's warning about a separate article's edit war (subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep]
 * 2) my warning about Schooled edit war (also subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (subsequently blanked by DJTonyPrep)

Comments: User is currently edit warring (and violating 3RR) at multiple other television-related articles, including The Good Fight, Single Parents (TV series), Carol's Second Act, and Man with a Plan (TV series). Please see user's contributions. Repeatedly blanks any warnings, with the edit summary "Deleting comments from an abusive Wikipedia user." Will also likely remove the 3RR discussion warning I will place on editor's talk page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that this editor is edit warring – at a minimum should be warned. If they re-revert again, they should get a 24-hour block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to see what the editor's next actions are. If they stop reverting, then there is no problem. If they revert further, then a block is needed to prevent further disruption. The proverbial ball is in their court. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also warned the user about blanking article talk pages and reminded them that removing a comment from their own user talk page is deemed as acknowledging it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You all need to get over yourselves. I am not violating any Wikipedia standards. And I have every right to post here like you do. The information I am providing in my edits are factual, and in line with other edits that have been made from other users. Not liking what I post is not a just cause to delete it. I will continue posting as I see fit as again, everything I am posting is in line with Wikipedia's policies and procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor warned again today after going back to the edit warring. . IMO, if there are any further reverts without discussion, a block—at least a partial block from the articles involved—will be necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor has made another revert, even after breaking 3RR and warning on editor’s talk page by User:C.Fred. Editor has also continued edit wars on the other television articles I mentioned. Don’t see why this hasn’t led to a block yet. --  Wikipedical (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree – after WP:SNEAKY waiting for some time to pass after this report was filed, editor went right back to edit warring – should definitely be blocked now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Another' revert by editor today on Schooled. Also continuing the same disruptive behavior on the other series as well.  Note left on talk page by User:C.Fred was blanked and obviously has not changed user's behavior.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the user said repeatedly on his or her own talk, he or she is continuing to do as he or she pleases. So, pretty indicates that he or she is not going to stop. I also want to note there is an open discussion over by Talk:The Good Fight that the editor still refuses to participate in. — Young Forever (talk)   15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor I find myself wondering why this editor has not been blocked. It's clear from the article history that the editor is edit-warring and has been for days. Is no uninvolved admin interested? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also uninvolved, but saw the multiple reverts and lack of talk page engagement on The Good Fight so came here to report it. DJTonyPrep needs an indef until they commit to discussing rather than edit warring. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have explained on your talk page you are indeed violating policy by edit-warring. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And as I've explained, so have you. I am officially warning you to stop harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The above are, sadly, typical responses from the editor. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor is planning to make another account to continue with with same edits. — Young Forever (talk)   17:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor's conduct shows flagrant disregard of WP policies, guidelines, and norms. Their conduct at WP:AN shows unwillingness to work with other editors in the cooperative environment of Wikipedia. A site block is necessary to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ericwilcox reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 959005104 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 959003696 due to last user's spam removal of any comments relating to the recent racial issue. Instead of removing valid article additions, discuss your objections on Talk page. DO NOT REMOVE ADDITIONS WITHOUT CONSENSUS."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 959001285 by NedFausa (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Franklin Templeton Investments. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2020 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Franklin Templeton Investments. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Racial matter */ reply"
 * 2)   "/* Racial matter */ reply"


 * Comments:

Wilcox has been reverting edits (even reverted Nicolao) as well as not responding on talk page. I don't see a good faith attempt at building consensus. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 18:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

. Block applied only for the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Fan of Mahabharat reported by User:Divyam Seth (Result: indef block following CU results)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Pandava. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Dear Sir, The user User:Fan_of_Mahabharat is engaged in edit war. I have reverted his edits so many times, but he is reverting my edits on page pandava. I gave him a warning on his talk page and advised him to develop a consensus on such edits where editors have different view and told that 'articles should also cite secondary sources' but he deleted the warning without any reply. Also, the user has removed all earlier warning from his talk page. please do the needful. Divyam Seth (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Divyam Seth, please do not assume that this noticeboard is governed by a man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This report is completely inadequate; Divyam Seth, next time you drag someone to one of these boards, please do your homework. You disregarded the standard formatting that was handed to you, and where you were supposed to list a significant number of diffs. You did not do that. Nor, by the way, did you add a diff of "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"--surprise, there's nothing on the talk page. In other words, both the report and your behavior in the article are sorely lacking. On the bright side, a few IP edits in the history made me wonder about the Fan, and CU confirms they have at least one other account (though that one not active in this article) and have edited while logged out during this edit war. That is sufficient to drop an indefinite block on them. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Debresser (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First addition of contested material
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Nishidani added content. IMHO that content shouldn't be in the article, and I removed it, with an explanatory edit summary. Per WP:BRD I would have expected Nishidani to take it to the talkpage, but instead he restored it, with a sneer in the edit summary, violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I removed it again, with an explanatory edit summary, asking Nishidani to take it to the talkpage. He restored it again, again adding a bad faith and uncivil sneer in the edit summary. Since the issue I have with the edit had not been addressed by Nishidani, I removed it again, while at the same time posting a warning on his talkpage and an explanation on the article's talkpage, both including a mention of WP:BRD. Nishidani added it again, prompting me to open this report as my efforts to make him see the error of his ways seem to be unsuccessful. He also posted a wall of text on his talkpage in which he explains why he thinks I have been bad editor ever since I joined Wikipedia back in 2008, completely missing the point that it is his behavior in this case that is problematic, as I explained to his in my reply. Although if we are going to review past behavior, this editor has been chastised many times for his aggressive and unpleasant interactions with his fellow editors, including twice recently at this very article talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:


 * No action. How is this a revert, and how (seriously) is this the "previous version reverted to"? Both users have reverted three times AFAICS, so it's kind of ballsy for one of them (Debresser) to take the other one (Nishidani) here. Please note that WP:BRD is not policy, and please see especially What BRD is not. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC).
 * This is not the "Three revert noticeboard", this is the "Edit warring noticeboard".
 * I know that WP:BRD is not a policy. Does that mean it should not be followed?
 * The number of reverts is not the sole indication of behavioral problems.
 * In any case, Nishidani just pointed out to me that I made a factual error, and I don't oppose the edit any more. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've edit-warred three times in the last 14 years, two in 2007, and one 2015/16 when I preferred a sanction rather than reverting back a piece of disinformation some sockpuppet introduced. I said I preferred a penalty of a month rather than restoring, by a further self-revert that would have brought me within the law, what was a patent falsehood. I was reluctant, Debresser, to allow you to drag me into that practice. I was adding a new source to the text, which you clearly in your first revert had not read: you just reverted me on sight, as is, unfortunately, one of your tendencies in my regard. Recently you wrote on your page to another editor offended by your edit summary:-
 * "Policy disagrees with me, but I too stand behind the edit summary. A bit of shaming won't hurt editors who don't true (sic =try) to find sources and prefer to simply remove information."
 * "You now add that I should be ashamed of myself for correcting you."
 * Notwithstanding your advice to him, you broke your own counsel, and preferred simply to remove information rather than find or even read a source someone else found, at Wadi Qana. And you did this fresh from being warned to desist from playing with the 3R rule to get your own way, something that earned you a weekly suspension two weeks ago. As in 2011 (see my page) and in later years, you have consistently managed to win a plea for mitigation for numerous infractions, and yet jumped in on the Wadi Qana page a week later and broke your promise,  that reduction of a sanction was conditional on your correcting this habit, to take more care in the future.
 * As I have asked you repeatedly in the past: do not revert unless you have studied the topic as closely as the editor you intend to revert. And for the record, you made 4 errors in your reverts, not one, and that is why I felt compelled to fix the text several times. If you disagree after one revert, go to the talk page and explain the problem. Reverting and then citing WP:BRD is weaponized editing that, in practice means giving a preponderance of gaming power to anyone who likes to revert, no matter how good the edit objected to may be, and drag the improving editors onto the talk page while refusing to budge, until they meet your personal terms (which I almost always find obscure). It gives reverters enormous, unwarranted power to block serious page improvements. That is also one reason, I guess, why it is not policy. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You continue with bad-faith accusations, patent lies and well-poisoning. At least I made an honest mistake, and admitted it right away, while you continue with your problematic behavior ever afterwards. That says all there is to know about you, basically. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you can document (a) where I accused you of bad faith (b) lied blatantly and (c) engaged in Poisoning the well you should strike the above comment out, for I asked you as late as April, and several times before over the years not to engage me personally or make references to your private views about me, but to stick to the content substance of editing. If you don't retract this arbitrary mudslinging, then I think this should all be reviewed by User:Boing! said Zebedee and Black Kite, your undertakings with whom not to editwar just a few weeks ago were broken by your behavior at Wadi Qana these last two days, behaviour that provoked a futile edit-war  on frivolous grounds, rather than for any comprehensible policy-based concerns about content, with no apparent function, it strikes me, but to make for the nth time a case that I am someone whose work is deleterious to wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you ask for it.
 * "where I accused you of bad faith" In the following edit summaries, and this edit on the talkpage  where you claim without any proof whatsoever that I didn't read the source and that my revert was a "blind revert".
 * "lied blatantly" In those same edits containing false claims, and where you claim that I broke a recent promise. The truth s rather the other way around, namely that I kept my promise. Which is precisely why I came here, and did not revert your edit a fourth time, even though you made it four times.
 * Which brings me to the following, that it indeed would be a good thing if there would be a "preponderance of gaming power to anyone who likes to revert", since that is nothing other than saying that an editor must show consensus for any change he makes that is challenged, which makes eminent sense and is completely in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding consensus.
 * You "engaged in Poisoning the well" when you started mentioning a recent conflict I was involved in, and decided that you need to express your opinion regarding how I handled that and other conflicts, here and on your talkpage.
 * And last but not least, "do not revert unless you have studied the topic as closely as the editor you intend to revert" is a rule of your making that I think we can all agree is not fair nor justified. Editors may be experts in certain topics, but be ignorant as to Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV or WP:V, for example, and may and should be reverted by any editor here, completely regardless of their lack of expertise in that field. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Debresser, this is the edit-warring noticeboard. It's not the "various complaints about users" noticeboard — that would be ANI. The reason I mentioned the 3RR at all was that both of you had reverted three times — you had edit-warred equally. And I kind of doubt you followed the link I gave, What BRD is not, you give no sign of it. Please, both of you, be done at this noticeboard and take any further discussion of who should be ashamed of what elsewhere, if you must. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Another bad faith statement ("And I kind of doubt you followed the link I gave, What BRD is not"). What is going on with Wikipedia these days? In any case, the report has become moot. Unwatching this page. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Yorkshire Amateur Premiere */"
 * 2)  "/* Characters and cast */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 959087081 by Kipps20 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 959082912 by Prahlad balaji (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* Yorkshire Amateur Premiere */"
 * 2)  "/* Characters and cast */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 959087081 by Kipps20 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 959082912 by Prahlad balaji (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continuation of edit war, please see previous report/block at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive406. Adding amateur production against guidelines, even after repeated warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The user literally has no other activities than adding a certain amateur performance to the article on this play. Previously blocked for that. According to the guideline, we don't include amateur productions. Probably an indef block is needed at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hewston Astro reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: Partial block from editing )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Maintaining precedent with similar cases (e.g. Emmett Till, etc) I have added the ethnic backgrounds of the parties, and included Amy Cooper's name in the body copy as her name is used as a redirect term but not reestablished in the article itself."
 * 2)  "/* Biography */"
 * 3)  "The article failed to call out why Christian is notable in the first place and did not call out Amy Cooper by name. I'm using Emmit Till as a reference, Carolyn Bryant is referenced in the article. Amy Cooper plays a similar part in this article and must be included to maintain integrity."
 * 1)  "/* Biography */"
 * 2)  "The article failed to call out why Christian is notable in the first place and did not call out Amy Cooper by name. I'm using Emmit Till as a reference, Carolyn Bryant is referenced in the article. Amy Cooper plays a similar part in this article and must be included to maintain integrity."
 * 1)  "The article failed to call out why Christian is notable in the first place and did not call out Amy Cooper by name. I'm using Emmit Till as a reference, Carolyn Bryant is referenced in the article. Amy Cooper plays a similar part in this article and must be included to maintain integrity."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit warring warning


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Central park incident */ re BLP and UNDUE"


 * Comments:
 * . This is a partial block that only affects their ability to edit Christian Cooper. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:ABHINAV1498 reported by User:Pablomartinez (Result: Blocked WP:NOTHERE)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 958804072 by Utcursch (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 959225259 by ABHINAV1498 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Multiple Source defined that he is rajput and so the most prominent evidence is more faith and already discussed in edit supporting link is attached from big information agency no edit further is required"
 * 4)  "new section source defined already discussed in edit and proper link attached"
 * 1)  "new section source defined already discussed in edit and proper link attached"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User seems to be trying to railroad his edits rather than build consensus. PabloMartinez (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked WP:NOTHERE. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Youaretheoneinmymind reported by User:Pampi1010 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "User:Youaretheoneinmymind edited out the corrections I made for wrong grammar, and insisted his version"
 * 2) Consecutive editing done from  19:09, 27 May 2020 to  19:11, 27 May 2020‎ "User:Youaretheoneinmymind was not responsive to my call for proper editing. He kept on reverting back his version with unrelated and unsourced version. The user also has poor grammar"
 * 3)  User also made unnecessary changes in a different page UP–UST rivalry, possibly just to annoy me.

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

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

Comments:


 * Consecutive edits count as a single revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly put the issues in the reverts section when it should've been in the edit warring section. Could someone please look at the issues one more time? Thank you! - Pampi1010 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Pampi1010: Still no violation. They have not made three reverts within a 24-hour period. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the last diff you gave,, is a good edit. They fixed a MOS violation with a date range. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. That's just sad. His editing and grammar are awful. Look at this one . If you'd also check out his Talk page, you'd notice that he never responded to any issues that were raised against him. I just have to endure his awful editing and keep an eye on him. — Pampi1010 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Paolo Peace reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "addressed issues"
 * 2)  "The promotion of peace and understanding has been an integral part of the Art of Paul Re since 1971. Read his peer-reviewed Art, Peace, and Transcendence and his Leonado articles to support this."
 * 3)  "The promotion of understanding and peace has been an integral part of the art of Paul Re since his first works in 1971. Read  peer-reviewed Art, Peace, and Trancendence and his Leonard articles."
 * 1)  "The promotion of understanding and peace has been an integral part of the art of Paul Re since his first works in 1971. Read  peer-reviewed Art, Peace, and Trancendence and his Leonard articles."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Paul Re. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Seem to be a promotional account, see also photo uploads of adverts of the artist, had been explained twice why the section about the price itself is off topic to the biography, does EW. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor needs to have been warned about edit warring before reporting them here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action at this time but the editor had better start taking the advice on board. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zeus Maximus reported by User:Dharmabumstead (Result: Protection, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "STOP destroying salvageable material until this is resolved, please. Undid revision 959287687 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 2)  "Much more work to re-add than delete if someone else edits in the meantime. Please stop destroying useful work. Undid revision 959284494 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 3)  "Will await dispute resolution to add; please don't destroy in meantime. Undid revision 959248835 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 959097227 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 5)  "If it please the court, Mr. Burger seems to have forgotten that someone looking at this article is obviously seeking information about individual episodes. Why shouldn't this information therefore appear as best evidence? Undid revision 959076542 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 6)  "please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler - Undid revision 959049798 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Added DRN notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Please stop adding 'victim' and 'murderer' in the episode list */"
 * 2)   "Added RFC"


 * Comments:

Added 'victim', 'accused' and 'murderer' to the List of Perry Mason episodes page with no context. It was so ugly I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it. He keeps adding it back. I've requested RfC (no responses), dispute resolution, and now page protection. Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Page has been fully protected until the dispute is resolved Ed6767 (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected two days by another admin. User:Zeus Maximus is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hello6789987654321 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */"
 * 6)  "/* Plot */"
 * 7)  "/* Plot */"
 * 8)  "/* Plot */"
 * 9)  "/* Plot */"
 * 10)  "/* Plot */"
 * 11)  "/* Plot */"
 * 12)  "/* Plot */"
 * 13)  "/* Plot */"
 * 14)  "/* Plot */"
 * 15)  "/* Plot */"
 * 16)  "/* Plot */"
 * 17)  "/* Plot */"
 * 18)  "/* Plot */"
 * 19)  "/* Plot */"
 * 20)  "/* Plot */"
 * 21)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"


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


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


 * Comments:

This person is continuously changing fact and vandalizing the page leading to an edit warring. ~ Amkgp ✉  19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * as a vandalism-only account. – bradv  🍁  19:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Covenantfk reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Initial series of edits:

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: N/A (user's updated version is clearly a promotional BLP violation).

Comments:


 * has communicated with on the latter's user talk page to indicate that they "have direct permission from the source whose biography is being edited" indicating that the subject has given the editor a document that they wish to use as their Wikipedia biography. The newly introduced material is clearly a resume and unsuitable for Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , clearly disruptive editing and probably WP:NOTHERE other than to add this unsourced info both in violation of WP:BLP and WP:COI, maybe even WP:NOR or a copyright issue if it'd been copied from an autobiography Ed6767 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user is warring to restore promotional resume-type language to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Dbrodbeck reported by User:Permareperwiki1664 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

The user continues reverting edit, claiming there needs to be a consensus however I have faced no other opposition to Criticisms on Richard Dawkins, therefore I recognise this as a consensus and I believe anyone would too.

There is an ongoing discussion about whether to include controversies but that is it. Criticism has not been raised by anyone else, therefore this must be a consensus however I would like to request outside help to settle this. Dbrodbec is just blatant edit warring at this moment.

He has reverted my edits twice now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 May, 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted twice, as there was no consensus for the changes. I then stopped. I have attempted to engage on the talk page.  Please see the talk page, there is more than me who is asking for consensus.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved admin please explain WP:BRD + WP:SIG + WP:INDENT to Permareperwiki1664 who made these non-consecutive edits at Richard Dawkins:
 * 03:30, 28 May 2020 adds 16,700 bytes
 * 04:19, 28 May 2020 reverts removal (of re-added 2,296 bytes)
 * 14:22, 28 May 2020 reverts removal
 * 14:59, 28 May 2020 reverts removal
 * Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:Permareperwiki1664, is warned they are risking a block if they revert again at Richard Dawkins unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nkon21 reported by User:190.219.181.246 (Result: IP blocked due to egregious personal attacks)
He reverted my edits to Qatar without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.181.246 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think this report is badly formatted. Also, there are no diffs presented. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the lamest edit warring report I have ever seen. There is literally no indication of edit warring anywhere, I reverted your pending change ONCE. Also, don't delete the conversation on MY talk page, that can be a violation of talk page vandalism. You were the one who initiated the question. This was my response. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Metanoia2019 reported by User:Epinoia (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff to last clean version

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Article Talk page

Comments:

– User:Metanoia2019 has made 17 edits to the article so far today (May 29, 2020) – continued to make edits after discussion started on Talk page – continued to make edits after edit warring notice placed on User Talk page (User Talk page diff) – user has had multiple warnings for disruptive editing in the past and has blanked User Talk page - Epinoia (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for the edit-warring. History of disruptive behaviour, so no objections if anyone wants to make it indefinite. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Danielinnov8 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 959592122 by Alexbrn (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * see Talk:Joel Fuhrman


 * Comments:

Not an immediate 3RR, but this user has been in a slow-motion edit-war continually trying to add inappropriate content to this article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I reported Danielinnov8 in April and requested a page protection. They broke the 3RR rule in April but for some reason they were not blocked back then. They stopped editing for over a month, now they are back to the same tricks again. I think Danielinnov8 should be blocked for disruption. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex and wiki people. I was incorrect to link to amazon, initially I believe that people could read the reviews of his books and make their own decision on the subject matter, however I was wrong. I did try to correct my mistake by referencing the Google Books sources for each book. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. I believe there should be more well rounded information regarding this person and his history/beliefs. In my last edit, I did not delete any information. I created a "Controversy" Heading where all of the critical information can be discussed in one place. People are entitled to their beliefs. Can you please explain why I am not? Thank you and kind regards. Danielinnov8 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time at AN3 was this report from 29 April. I warned User:Danielinnov8 against any more reverts at Joel Fuhrman without getting a talk page consensus first. The edits reported here qualify as a resumption of the war so I think it is time for a block. I do not see anyone on the talk page supporting the editor's changes so it is fair to say he did not win a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Orangemike. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Torenzoinc reported by User:GSS (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added details on his career and personal life."
 * 1)  "Added details on his career and personal life."
 * 1)  "Added details on his career and personal life."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Mike Oquaye Jnr‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

No effect of warnings GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. Warring to add poorly-sourced content to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:87.11.133.242 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:, aka

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:

Hello. I tried asking the user to discuss the changes on the talk page to no avail. The user has approached 3RR on List of years in film and List of years in animation (I opened a discussion regarding the best effort to resolve the dispute at WT:FILM), as well as The Lego Movie. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just discovered that reinstated the same edit to the page while discussion is ongoing, so I suspect that he used the IP as a sockpuppet; the user is approaching WP:3RR on Frozen II. I also warned Davide about edit warring here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Look, why don't we put all Disney products, Disney, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel projects and the post-2019 Fox productions on the new wikipage: List of years in Disney? It would be a great idea, so you wouldn't have to accuse me. I am only trying to do what's good, and you only need to find it out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide palladini (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: The IP has been blocked for 72 hours by from anonymous editing at 11:40 (UTC), 29 May 2020. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sanitroni reported by User:Asqueladd (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Stable version: diff preferred

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


 * This is a comment by user:Sanitroni on the reported page. The consensus may be achieved already because I've introduced the changes asked for in the Talk page, I would thank to have in consideration that the other users simply eliminated my addings, when they could have introduced the changes by themselves, the reversions were then necessary to meet with the notes they made about my edition. It wasn't about putting what I wanted, but about correcting the text following their indications, trying to mantian all the relevant information about the subject that would be useful to visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanitroni (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PUFFERY, WP:NOTHERE. Asqueladd (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Sanitroni is warned they may be blocked if they ccontinue to revert against editors trying to maintain the neutrality of our articles. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:47.61.121.222 reported by User:Iñaki LL (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) see comment by RexxS

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unresponsive IP editor with one kind of obstinate edit, I had to revert him more than once, after another dispute in another article with a ghostly new user showing a like behaviour. S/he reverted my edits from long ago in Juan Jose Ibarretxe and Carlos Garaikoetxea (same case as Juan Jose Ibarretxe, check history). He has also been warned by an administrator. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IP 47.61.121.222 is the same as IP 212.8.111.78 which made the first addition . IP 47.61.121.222 even uses the edit summary Re-added Juan Carlos I as monarch during his tenure, obviously aware of and echoing that of IP 212.8.111.78 (Added Juan Carlos I as monarch during his tenure). --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring about Juan Carlos across two different articles between May 27 and 29. This may also be the same person as who made the same change more than a year ago. (Notice the wording of the edit summaries). EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring about Juan Carlos across two different articles between May 27 and 29. This may also be the same person as who made the same change more than a year ago. (Notice the wording of the edit summaries). EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rockey0417 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first change
 * 2) first revert
 * 3) second revert
 * 4) third revert

The user is also edit warring at Shooting of Duncan Lemp
 * 1) first edit
 * 2) first revert
 * 3) second revert
 * 4) third revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

I have reached WP:3RR on Boogaloo movement, so have left the article in its current inaccurate state while this is resolved. The user appears to be a member of the movement (see edit summaries) removing sourced content to try to improve the group's image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - 24 hours for edit warring after repeated warnings and edits with no summary. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Moamem reported by User:Jadebenn (Result: Both warned)
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:

Notified user of Wikipedia policy on edit wars and the three-revert rule after the first four reverts. User was not reported until their fifth revert in order to give them a chance to change their behavior. A conversation was held on the talk page where I attempted to explain the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, when talks stalled, instead of attempting to invite other users and find a consensus (a course of action I suggested to said user), the user first blanked the content in contention and then subsequently reverted the page again. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The edits in dispute were made by this contributor Jadebenn as can bee seen here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314


 * He replaced older real figures (which were not made by me personally) with his own, providing incorrect sources that he himself calls "a weak citation" as you can see on the talk page. He tries to make a multitude of "weak" sources pass for a good argument. Which is a fallacy.


 * I tried to provide multiple compromises, reverting to the original edit or even deleting the wrong figure until we reach a compromise. These proposition were all met with a refusal.


 * I tried to deconstruct his sources in order to show him why I considered them "weak" or sometimes even wrong. For example that the figure for "marginal launch cost" is not the same as the actual "launch cost", it sounds the same but it is absolutely not. But he keeps addressing my multi hundred word structured arguments with one liners that often do not even address the issue. Which makes communication difficult. At the end he now just plainly refuses to address my arguments claiming he already did.


 * Jadebenn in his comment here, asserts that I "first blanked the content in contention and then subsequently reverted the page again" when in reality I offered to delete the disputed figure until we come to a compromise. He then reverted my edit. I then offered to revert to the original figure before his own edit. but he reverted it again. Which is the current situation.


 * My proposition is therefore to revert to the original figures before his edit until a consensus is reached. here :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314 Moamem (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. An edit that occurred 6 months ago on a highly-trafficked page 'is' the "original figure" for all intents and purposes. If you wish to make a change, you can't reach back half-a-year and act as though there was no consensus in the intervening time. Please review WP:BRD. This page is also not a forum for the validity of said figure. That would be the article talk page. If you didn't like my answers, you could have (as I suggested) pinged other editors and made your case to them. Instead, you have chosen to wage an edit war. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 05:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realised how much you've been acting like you own this page, I am at least the 6th person in the last 6 months that tries to revert this figure to the real one :
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925620594&oldid=925395840
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=925963019&oldid=925876896
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=926359702&oldid=926277355
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=927943530&oldid=927446682
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=955609445&oldid=955286614
 * and me.
 * And you are the only person to seem to be reverting to your figure, I guess the consensus is not on your side.Moamem (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * McSly and User:Materialscientist reverted your edits as well. As for your "examples":
 * An edit from 7 months ago containing material that was ultimately incorporated into the "cost per year" figure as part of the compromise.
 * Ditto.
 * Addition of a NASA OIG source stating a different cost per launch.
 * Reversion of edit by user in violation of Wikipedia policies on original research (who was also reverted by McSly and one other user whose name escapes me.
 * I'd also like to point out that Moamem has now reverted the material again without discussing the changes on the talk page despite the ongoing edit warring proceedings against him. I'll add it to the list. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 20:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Materialscientist was talking about from, which I addressed to his satisfaction by taking away non necessary precisions. Which he seemed to accept.


 * McSly Misread the reference and seemed to have accepted it once I highlighted it. See our exchange -> McSaly : "no indication he's talking about the cost per launch as he seems to include development costs in that figure". My response :"the literal quote is "At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete", so no development cost is not included". Seems to be logically settled.
 * As for the the consensus against you :
 * He never actually talked about "cost per year" which is totally different figure but meant exactly what he wrote : launch cost
 * Ditto
 * No! Same OIG source, same figure everybody is citing except you
 * That's just your opinion
 * And 5?
 * And 6 (me)?
 * I reverted the material to where it was before you changed it to a false figure. You refuse to even participate in the talk page. You refuse to address the validity of your references. You refuse to acknowledge the 6 people that rightly pointed out the right figures. You are not helping your case. - Moamem (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not a forum to complain about content of my edits. This is a question of whether or not you're edit warring, which you are, as you've now done another revert. And I did participate in the talk page, but I didn't agree with your logic, and you've refused to go through the normal channels for dispute resolution. Cherry-picking edits over the course of several months to try and paint a picture of me taking unilateral action does not suit you. You do realize I am not the only one to have made changes to that section of the page, right? Nor am I the only one to defend its content, something you like to ignore in your attempts to portray me as a rogue contributor.
 * Also yes, launch cost is different than cost per year. That is the entire reason I oppose your edit. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring, I am merely reverting your falsehoods to the real figure that I DID NOT write in the first place. You're the one who is engaging in an edit war by replacing real numbers with your own despite 6 different people rightfully rejecting them. You do not give arguments, you just give me unrelated one liner assertions. And for some days now your don't even respond. Anyone who takes a look at the talk page would realize that. Just look at the talk page edit history.
 * Stop trying to pass comments about form or context as people who agree with you. They did NOT support your claim at any moment. Give me one quote from them. But do you realize that even more people (exactly double) disagree with you?
 * I do portray you as a rogue contributor, because you lie and show a good deal of dishonesty throughout out interactions.
 * Finally I never talked about "cost per year" the exact quote I and all the other use from the OIG says specifically " At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete" . It's quite evident that the figure here is solely about the launch cost and nothing else and you know that! Moamem (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What part of "this is not the place to discuss your dispute about content" do you not understand? You could have the most legitimate edit in the world and you'd still be violating the rules in your refusal to go through the appropriate channels for dispute resolution. There are processes you can use to legitimately resolve standoffs like this. I should know, I've had to use the myself in the past! But I had the patience to work through it with other users and build lasting consensus. You, on the other hand, saw a figure you disagreed with, reverted it, got reverted back yourself, and then continued to ram your changes through. That's not how Wikipedia works. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a feature of your thinking. Rules seems to apply to people who disagree with you but not to yourself. You're telling me to not discuss content here, but fail to realize that I was merely responding to YOU talking about content. Same pattern, you accuse me of edit warring while being the one who initiated the edit warring.
 * I actually contacted 11 different contributors active is space articles :
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soumya-8974
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yul_B._Allwright
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CRS-20
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JHunterJ
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ionmars10
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilipTerryGraham
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sovxx
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jarrod_Baniqued
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blainster
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoganBlade
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:N2e
 * On the other hand YOU never even engaged in any consensus building but simply dismissed the input of 6 different people who rightfully tied to show the real figures. - Moamem (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit No 3 and 4 are me editing myself, which is not considered a revert and has no place in your (baseless) complaint. Trying to falsely make it seem like I broke the rules? Not very honest are you? Not very surprising giving how you acted throughout our interactions. - Moamem (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Falsely"? You continue to violate the policies on edit warring. If you have a disagreement with long-standing content on a page, make a change, and then someone reverts your change, you use the methods of dispute resolution to resolve the matter. You do not continuously try and steamroll opposition by making bogus claims and continual reverts. Nor do you get to blank the content "pending discussion." The onus is on you to show your edit is warranted.
 * Also, please sign all of your comments. Thank you. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you falsely tried to slip a correction I made to my own edit as a revert, in the sole purpose of making it SEEM like I broke the rules. This is extremely dishonest. (see reverts 3 and 4)
 * I am absolutely not the one engaging in edit warring, YOU are. It is not "Long standing content", it is YOUR content that you only managed to keeping up on the page for this long despite 6 different people trying to revert to the real figure (6 people randomly trying to revert to the same figure, coincidence?) by relentlessly attacking other contributors like you do me.
 * No one has the time or the energy to challenge you for days like everyone can see in this instance. If it wasn't for COVID I wouldn't either.
 * No the onus is not on me, I am merely reverting to the original figure before your vandalism. You're the one who needs to stop trying to bully contributors into allowing your false figure... All 6 of them. You yourself admit that your sources are weak. What more do you need?
 * This is the last warning, if you edit it one more time I'll be forced to file a report - Moamem (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe filing a retaliatory report here will end well for you, especially since you haven't attempted to use any dispute resolution methods since the initial revert and have displayed extremely tendentious behavior.
 * Also, he reverted again. We're up to 7 now, and he's showing no sign of stopping. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Both editors have been continuing with their edit war after the filing of the report and neither seem to have any intention to stop. Bickering here about if a change should or shouldn't be considered a revert while at the same time doing multiple reverts show that they do not understand or care about respecting the rules. Can we please block both of them so at least the disruption stops. --McSly (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it actually against the rules to try and maintain a revision prior to the controversial changes? Seriously, I am legitimately unaware. Does that itself count as edit warring?
 * I realize it perpetuates the conflict to continue to revert them, but I want User:Moamem to go through the proper channels to settle the content dispute. The alternative, I fear, would be allowing him to do what he wants unopposed; Rewarding his behavior.
 * I'm a fairly long-time editor, and I have no previous history of getting involved in an edit war like this. If Moamem had, for example, started an RfC when our talks failed, or solicited opinion on Wikiproject:Spaceflight, and the talks turned against me, I would not have opposed it. But he's instead decided he's going to make this change to the page, damn what anyone else thinks. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm reading the policy again, I guess it would count. I'll cease any further reversions pending the outcome of this report. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is edit warring. Except special exemptions such as clear vandalism or WP:BLP violations which is not the case here, you both participated to the edit war. Since it's clear that User:Moamem tried to impose their change without consensus, after you had file this report, you just had to wait. The information in dispute is certainly minor and there isn't any problem with the article showing the "wrong" version for a few days. --McSly (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I apologize for being part of the problem. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the first to admit that I do not master all the arcanes and rules of Wikipedia, I would like to note that I have acted in good faith and tried to abide by all the rules to the extent of my knowledge :
 * I tried to give clear and comprehensive arguments explaining the position shared by 6 different people, which he dismissed without proper debate and then refused to even engage in conversation (as you could see by looking at the Talk page)
 * I then tried to document the consensus, with 6 different people having the same position, and only him forcing his number through bullying tactics.
 * I solicited 11 different contributors to participate in the conversation, as you can see above
 * I honestly do not know what I am supposed to do at this point, he does not want to engage anymore, he tries to bully me by making misleading reports, people don't seem interested. I honestely do not know what to do? I will also stop any edits until I get a better understanding or this is settled - Moamem (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. User:Moamem and User:Jadebenn are each risking a block if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Neither party helped their own cause by continuing to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2602:304:7830:949:1D83:DBC7:1394:57CF reported by User:catleeball (Result: Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly removed sections from the Prince of Egypt page, Joseph: King of Dreams page, Dreamworks page, and List of Prequels page to remove references to Joseph:KoD being a prequel to Prince of Egypt. The only edits made by this user were related to redacting this information, and has not provided any sources or discussion.

Thanks, Catleeball (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Special:Contributions/2602:304:7830:949::/64 has been blocked 3 months for edit warring by User:ToBeFree. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, this was here too. Thanks, . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mavi Gözlü Kel reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurkish_War_of_Independence&type=revision&diff=959595226&oldid=952874808

Comments:

This user keep adding unsourced contents saying: "reference Turkish Wikipedia" and doing edit war for a long time. Beshogur (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * -- 4 days. User has been blocked before. (See the ANI report from 12 April). But all parties ought to be trying to explain themselves on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mikeenc73 reported by User:Creffett (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 959827455 by Donaldd23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 959799921 by Donaldd23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Corrected death date"
 * 4)  "Changed death date to correct date of May 28 and added statement from Bruce Kulick."
 * 5)  "changed tense"
 * 6)  "Added death information and changed tenses in article"
 * 1)  "changed tense"
 * 2)  "Added death information and changed tenses in article"


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


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


 * Comments:

Originally just gave an edit-warring warning, but on further inspection this edit war has been going on for over a day and has at least one 3RR violations, so reporting here. No resolution initiatives noted because I'm not involved in the content dispute. creffett (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts on this one. Claiming to be a family friend who's correcting information on behalf of the family is not a free pass to make unsourced edits, however sometimes it's an uncontentious, plausible situation that can be dealt with better than reverting and blocking them. In this case, the user was being reverted because their claims were not verifiable. Fair enough, until you realize that the user reverting them was themselves reinstating unsourced content. No sources confirmed the date of death as the 29th. That's simply the date the announcement was made. It's not exactly a stretch to believe the guy actually died the day before. I'll block unsourced content and edit warring all day, but if a user is a newbie who's pleading with us, saying they're here in good faith and are simply trying to correct some information, I'm not going to give them a free pass to violate policy, but I'm going to think twice and look a little closer before railroading them with "policy enforcement". I've removed the date of death from the article, which I'm doing as an admin action under WP:BLP-enforcement (which continues to apply to the recently deceased). It is technically contentious unsourced content. I then fully protected the page for a few days. Hopefully during that time some more definitive reliable sources will present themselves. Regards, ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User: Debresser reported by User: Dibol

 * Page  ,


 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user’s reverts:

For the sake of brevity Charles Parnell (actor) edits


 * 1)  "Undo removal of information with 5 sources, replaced by tweet. (talk)"
 * 2)  "I doubt that it is for the previous editor to decide that all those sources are not reliable. Please take t to the talkpage or to WP:RS/N. (talk)"

Repeated revert history of re-adding contested and poorly sourced information from May 8 - May 14, 2020.

Jon Hamm edits


 * 1) "Undid revision 955599898 by Dibol (talk)"
 * 2) "Undid revision 956002792 by Dibol (talk)."

Repeated revert history of re-adding contested and poorly sourced information from May 8 - May 14, 2020

List of Ed Harris performances edits


 * 1) "Reverted edits by 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:60C9:C6A4:8D10:C791 (talk) to last version by BattyBot)"
 * 2) "Undid revision 956002646 by Dibol (talk)"

Repeated revert history of re-adding contested and poorly sourced information from May 12- May 14, 2020

Top Gun: Maverick edits


 * 1) "Sources are available, e.g. IMDb, heraldjournalism.com, www.augsburger-allgemeine.de)"

Repeated addition of poorly sourced edits from May 8-14 until page’s eventual lockdown.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

"‎(May 30 2020: new section)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Top Gun: Maverick article talk page


 * 1) "New editor removing information"
 * 2) 956657152 New editor removing information

Comments:

Debresser has been repeatedly reverting removal of erroneous information regarding the casting roles of actors Jon Hamm, Ed Harris, and Charles Parnell in Top: Gun Maverick. During first few contacts, I asked him what legitimate sources existed regarding the characters they are portraying. Upon production of sources, all of cited sources were referencing incorrect data that was user-submitted from IMDB. Despite an attempted conversation on Top Gun: Maverick’s discussion page, Debresser has been unilaterally adding contested information regardless of the consensus of other users stating the sources in question have a reliability issue. Debresser has repeated this attempt hours ago. Dibol (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's start with that User:Dibol forgot to mention that he was previously blocked for edit warring over this very same issue. See WP:ANI archive.
 * Regarding the edits themselves. The information is sourced. The number of sources on each of these statements is actually 4-5. User:Dibol seems hellbent on removing these statements. First he claimed that the information is unsourced. When I added sources, he started by claiming that they "never even cited where they got their information from". As though that is something sources must do. Now he claims that the sources are not reliable. He has not supported that claim with arguments. If he wants to argue that the sources are not reliable, he should support that claim with detailed arguments for each of the sources. He also claims the sources use IMDb information. He should make up his mind if these sources don't indicate where they got their information from, or if they got it from IMDb. And how would he know? In short, I think it is User:Dibol who should be sanctioned here for generally being unreasonable and removing sourced information.
 * I tried to discuss this with User:Dibol on his talkpage on May 9, but to no avail.
 * In addition, I think this forum should check if the blocked IPv6 editors who also removed this information weren't User:Dibol, because if it was, then that would be a Sock puppetry violation.
 * Finally, this edit of mine was a mistake, and I thank User:Dibol for reverting it. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:PlanesNGamesNSports reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result:Blocked for 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 959993925 by Sakura Cartelet (talk) not enough images. done. end of conflict"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 959989624 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) no it dosent, also im not gonna argue anymore with a gay person and someone who knows my talk page like the back of their hand"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 959955702 by Jetstreamer (talk) i mean, what is wrong with innocently adding images haha"
 * 4)  "/* Fleet */ a few years back, this had 5 photos in fleet so i returned the favor"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Was warned by here. Continues to add images despite multiple editors objecting to them and refuses to discuss on talk page. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 16:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Result: Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tupka86 reported by User:Koreanovsky (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * WP:POV - This is just becoming childish! User:Tupka86 keeps removing the new Volkswagen logo without any reason. We will probably all agree that the old once looked much better, but facts are facts, no matter if we like them or not. The user was probably already doing the same multiple times as an IP (same edit-summary:, , ). --Koreanovsky (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Tupka86 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Volkswagen unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on Talk. Figuring out the old versus the new logo may not be a simple matter and it needs editor agreement. It is indeed possible that Tupka86 is the same editor as Special:Contributions/86.126.160.100, who is now blocked for 3 months by User:ToBeFree. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zeus Maximus reported by User:Dharmabumstead (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "STOP destroying salvageable material until this is resolved, please. Undid revision 959287687 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 2)  "Much more work to re-add than delete if someone else edits in the meantime. Please stop destroying useful work. Undid revision 959284494 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 3)  "Will await dispute resolution to add; please don't destroy in meantime. Undid revision 959248835 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 959097227 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 5)  "If it please the court, Mr. Burger seems to have forgotten that someone looking at this article is obviously seeking information about individual episodes. Why shouldn't this information therefore appear as best evidence? Undid revision 959076542 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"
 * 6)  "please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler - Undid revision 959049798 by Dharmabumstead (talk) -zm"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Added DRN notice"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Please stop adding 'victim' and 'murderer' in the episode list */"
 * 2)   "Added RFC"


 * Comments:

Added 'victim', 'accused' and 'murderer' to the List of Perry Mason episodes page with no context. It was so ugly I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it. He keeps adding it back. I've requested RfC (no responses), dispute resolution, and now page protection. Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Page has been fully protected until the dispute is resolved Ed6767 (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: User:User:Zeus Maximus has tried to make an end-run around article protection by creating a fork at List of Perry Mason episode murderers. --Calton &#124; Talk 23:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page protected two days by another admin. User:Zeus Maximus is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking User:Zeus Maximus 24 hours for disruptive editing. By creating a new article with similar content, he is evading the result of the last AN3 and the dispute resolution that he started himself over at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7D:4E32:F100:79EA:CEA8:A16E:CA63 reported by User:Prahlad balaji (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 960063153 by 2A02:C7D:4E32:F100:79EA:CEA8:A16E:CA63 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 960026818 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 959958126 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 959958031 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 959957957 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 959957876 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 959957957 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 959957876 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (This edit was made using Twinkle✧)"


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

User keeps reverting edits by another IP without valid explanation. --Stay safe, ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Hi, per WP:3RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Do you see more than one such revert? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these:
 * "Undid revision 960026818 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 959958126 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 959958031 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 959957957 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 959957876 by 90.204.254.79 (talk)"
 * --Stay safe, ◊ PRAHLAD <sup style="color:#707">balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, but that seems to be one revert, consisting of multiple consecutive edits (see the WP:3RR quote above). Is there any other revert I have overlooked, or is this indeed about one single revert? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like there aren't. In any case, I must've misunderstood the wording, because I thought that "a series of consecutive edits" meant "multiple rev diffs". Sorry about that! --Stay safe, ◊ <b style="color:#095">PRAHLAD</b> <sup style="color:#707">balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll close this for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Lordlugus reported by User:Lurking shadow (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (That was not me, but I didn`t revert either - just saw that edit war in my watchlist)

Comments:

Comments also suggest potential WP:RGW issues.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Has been blocked.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)