Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive411

User:173.133.196.181 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Version before they arrived:

Their original edit: (attempting to whitewash the article with unsourced fabrications)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I'd try hashing this out at the Talk page, but with the IP already making accusations of conspiracy and demanding to see a manager, I doubt it would be productive. (Courtesy ping of, who has also reverted the IP.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP accused me of a 3RR violation on my first revert of their disruptive edit, and that they would report me to ArbCom (clearly not a first time editor to WP). Britishfinance (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3RR applies to the number of reverts, not your personal total. This is to prevent brigading such as you and your fellow editor seem to be doing. You can't phone a friend here. Now, if I may ask you a question; in what way is asking questions to stimulate discussion NOT the Socratic Method? I linked to Socratic Method which I assume you read. As I said on your talk page, I asked Jimbo a few years ago about the webcomic that inspired the meme, and he said the white woman who expressed hate for sealions was a racist. It's a very fair analysis, I am sure you would agree. There is nothing impolite about asking her why she is prejudiced against sealions. I awaiy our reply. 173.133.196.181 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This administrator is unconvinced that Britishfinance was canvassed or otherwise called in to the article in an untoward manner. Even if we were to combine the edits of Britishfinance and XOR'easter, Britishfinance's revert would only be the second. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not reach out to contact Britishfinance in any way (until the courtesy ping I made just above). I presume that Britishfinance simply has the article watchlisted, as I do. Sealioning is, by definition, not asking questions to stimulate discussion. "Jimbo's" opinion is irrelevant, as was actually established by a full RfC. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – None of the three editors mentioned in this report has broken WP:3RR. For a brand-new editor the IP does seem precocious, when they allege canvassing and suggest a referral to Arbcom on their fourth edit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:84.132.148.245 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a relatively trivial issue, to do with the capitalization of a section heading, but the editor has been aggressively continuing to edit war despite the efforts of myself and another editor to persuade them that their edits are contrary to guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Five reverts of the capitalization of k.d. lang since 8 June. The IP has shown WP:IDHT and made personal attacks on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:190.148.209.95 reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Éowyn */ it's irrelevant"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has immediately returned from block to continue removal of cited content.

History shows the same edits being made by similar IPs GimliDotNet (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one year. For many weeks a variety of IPs have been taking out a paragraph about Éowyn's feminist credentials in the same way. Previously the page had a year of PC protection but the same reverts are going on steadily in spite of that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Passengerpigeon reported by User:Danielreitberg (Result: Page protected, reporter soft-blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963290437

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963313779
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314185
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314714
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963315555
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963316068

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

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

Comments:


 * I have reverted the edits because the user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:WowWashington; they are under investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Drewserbs.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Non-admin comment) Reporter appears to have COI issues, serious SPA issues, and likely sockpuppet issues (sprung into existence knowing what that even was). Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * has an exemption from 3RR for good-faith reverts of apparent vandalism and/or block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, has been blocked based on this comment, which indicates that he is not who the username asserts him to be. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Frat070699 reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: Two week block from page in question)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and was warned before by another user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reported user has started editing List of Kurdish dynasties and countries since 9 May 2020 and his edits has become disruptive on the mentioned article. POV-pushing, false and misleading edit summaries, ignoring other editors' points, WP:OWN, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. They opened a section on talk page but refused to collaborate, dropping their stick, and continued edit warring and non-stop reverts and removals of content added by other editors. Please take a look at both revision history and Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries to see edit warring pattern of them. Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * However, it does look like Frat070699 is an SPA only on Wikipedia to push a certain viewpoint on Kurdish history. If this behaviour continues at other articles or restarts on this article when the block expires, a site-wide block may be more appropriate Number   5  7  10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Gatitoamr1299 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Editing while logged out on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also editing warring while logged out as Special:Contributions/2605:E000:121E:802F::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IP was blocked yesterday by somebody else. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Melody Concerto reported by User:66.130.253.101 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Four reverts in 8 minutes including two without any explanation. User also attempted to start an edit war on my talk page. 66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasons were provided after sufficient reverts. IP user did not engage via talk; only began reverting. Assumed vandalism; warned and mitigated lack of reason fields in later reversions. ♥ Melody ♥ 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't excuse the fact that you've broke 3RR by edit warring for a reason that wasn't part of WP:3RRNO nor does it excuse the fact that you've disregarded WP:BLANKING. And if you've "assumed vandalism" despite the initial edit summary I left, then you do not even deserve to have the rollback tool because you obviously don't know what constitute vandalism.: 66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * by someone else already. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Evrik (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

Sundayclose disagrees on the application of FREER, on this image, File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg. However, I uploaded the image in good faith. First, the image gets tagged for speedy deletion, okay. Second, Sunday close then issues me a warning.

I am somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of this users actions, in this edit they threatened to block me again and cited WP:SUICIDE. WTH? --evrik (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three of those reverts were removal of a copyright violation, which as I understand it does not violate 3RR; I reverted an image from the cover of Playboy magazine of a living Playboy Playmate and notable actress, a violation of WP:FREER. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it were clear that the image was coyvio, you tagged my talk page twice, reverted and edit when I was adding sources, refused to take this to IFD, and went a little overboard when you placed WP:SUICIDE on my talk page. --evrik (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Taking a deep breath. If you restore the image and take the discussion to an IFD, I will agree to withdraw this complaint. Cheers. --evrik (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Copyright violation is not a matter of negotiation. I trust admins on this board to make a decision about whether removal of copyrighted images is edit warring. I don't trust you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay then. --evrik (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:B103N48 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: Warned; Edit Restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

At Talk:List of Tamil films of 2020,, who has well under 200 edits, and thus is not familiar with Wikipedia community policy like WP:CRYSTAL, needed some edification about that policy, which I provided, but they seem to think it is not relevant here. The user believes this wall of poorly-sourced future events about upcoming, unreleased films should be kept, despite at least three other editors thinking that the content should be cut until they can all be substantiated, and some feel that even then, there should be specific release dates before the films are included. In that edit I just linked, B103N45 restored the content yet again, the fourth time they've done this since 14 June 2020, foisting their preference over the opinions of other editors. It would seem to me this is a fairly standard situation--the user can curate this content in their sandbox and find proper sourcing, but unsourced content about future events shouldn't be in there, as it violates policy. But anyway, they seem to be stalwart about warring over this, and it's unclear how many people will be required to comment before they accept a consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve warned them on continued behaviour when editing and placed this edit restriction until there’s evidence of an attempt to discuss consensus and acknowledge their editing issues with a clear view on how they shall proceed to edit constructively. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Apache287 reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User was reverted by multiple editors, including me, Wikibenboy94, Guardian101 etc. They are trying to change the review aggregator Metacritic's consensus and score without actually presenting a valid reason and sources.


 * Full-protected by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle reported by User:Eddaido (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

I see no attempt to discuss this before the report, nor a warning to the reported user for 3RR. Further, the reporting editor themselves is at three reverts. Finally, the reported editor has not breached the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great, how do I persuade him to stop?.Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Eddaido: You engage in discussion on the talk page and explain why the images improve the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's so straightforward, thank you. This editor does not notice these things. The article is about the item(s) in the image(s). How further can you go? Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Eddaido: That's a content matter. You should discuss that at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're at it, here's where Qwirkle keeps reverting my case fixes in spite of my attempts to discuss: Not quite a 3RR violation, but a difficult behavior to work with, especially when tag-teaming with another reverter. See attempts to discuss at User_talk:Pi.1415926535 and Talk:Central subway (Boston). I guess as a "semi-retired" wikipedian he only has enough time for reverts, and has no use for guidelines or serious discussion. I haven't given him a 3RR warning, as these weren't within 24 hours. He has engaged a bit at the conversation, with a few personal attacks, unlike Pi... who merely posted personal attacks and told me to go away. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 13 June
 * 13 June
 * 14 June
 * – 3 days. I suggest the editors might try to work through their issues one at a time on the talk page. You could use WP:DRN if no agreement can be reached. If User:Eddaido continues to make personal attacks such as using the word 'lies', in an edit summary, they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at the talk page and the article you'll see evidence of good collaboration and progress. Some disagreements still, but not what I'd call edit warring.  The article has picked up a lot of new material, images, sources, structure.  Your block will impede progress, nor prevent warring. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Eddaido's last edit summary expresses great displeasure (at 05:59 on 18 June). If Eddaido has changed their mind and now shares your opinion about 'good collaboration and progress' I'll lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Dicklyon is part of the Eddaido/Qwirkle problem. Dicklyon is GF and will talk to either of them. Sammy D III (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Eddaido is unhappy, and his edits still get reverted. But the rest of us are making progress, with lots of edits since that revert, and a general agreement on what the article is about, which Eddaido hasn't really accepted yet.  I have my problems with Qwirkle, but he knows what he's talking about, and I'm working to convince Eddaido while improving the article and trying to mediate a bit.  The root of the problem is that Eddaido tried to make the article into a different topic than it has ever been, and Qwirkle was a bit brusk and elliptic in his revert summaries.  But I think we're way past that, and Eddaido can come along if he like, or he can keep pushing his idiosyncratic direction, which is disruptive.  But he hasn't been pushing much, compared to the constructive work there.  Sammy D III is trying to help, too, but also has difficulty with Qwirkle's style; that's not edit warring. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi just to say I'm around and very much interested in events. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please respond to the ping at the bottom of the talk section Talk:Artillery_wheel, or we'll have to conclude that you're ignoring the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am very deliberately ignoring that discussion. Last time I looked there seemed to be progress so I've deliberately stayed away from there and apart from stating the very obvious: An artillery (large-calibre guns used in warfare on land-Google) wheel was specially designed in the Middle Ages to try to cope with the very heavy loads represented by artillery. Really heavy stuff I believe went on rollers over a period of months. More recently variants of those designs have been used for motor vehicles. These are artillery wheels for motor vehicles, artillery wheels for short? Not real artillery wheels - I suggested separate articles but they could be separate sections. Need I say more as to why I will stay out of contributions on that page. As I said, last time I looked you seemed to be leading the pack towards the correct conclusion. Best I do not participate until you reach a conclusion. By the way there remain gross terminological inexactitudes in captions. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I want to add: so far as I'm concerned you've stopped what might have become another disaster: Eddaido (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but the consensus of everyone but you is that "artillery wheel" refers to a certain style of wheel construction, not to wheels on artillery in general. If you're staying out of that, don't come back later and disagree, or you'll be back here for disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Chukkar reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * – 24 hours by User:Daniel Case for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2409:4072:6D8A:9675:0:0:7A0B:2708 reported by User:Joseywales1961 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

   

warning notice to user of this discussion
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Repeatedly inserting their own text with no explanation, edit summary etc JW 1961   Talk  20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected six months due to caste-related edit warring. See all the past protections. This article is covered by community sanctions under WP:GS/Caste. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Harshtripa reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user keep adding "transexual" and "transgender" to a such respectful title in Islamic world. I request this user being banned. Beshogur (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for disruptive editing. This user has made persistent unsourced changes since May 29. The article contains no source asserting a 'transexual' meaning for this term. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Trojanishere reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Those figures are of injured. Not casualties (which includes seriously injured and deaths only). So those numbers include very minor injuries too. And such info about Chinese side isn't available. So, it would distort the info box to make it appear as if injuries are only from one side. Moreover, in all military history pages only seriously wounded are mentioned. Not all the minor ones."
 * 2)  "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox"
 * 3)  "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox."
 * 4)  "Casualties itself means both deaths and seriously injured. This has been discussed at the Talk page already. So no need to use the term 'dead and seriously injured' again."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 963180580 by 嘉傑 (talk) These details are unnecessary. Please do not make the Page bulky by adding such details. One can know who he is by simply hovering over his name as there is already a wikipedia page and this link has been added."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 963179524 by 嘉傑 (talk) Paramount? Isn't he the president."
 * 7)  "This is better as casualties itself includes both deaths and seriously injured"
 * 8)  "As per the citation it includes deaths and seriously injured not deaths and injured."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 963149439 by 葉又嘉 (talk) Please do not keep doing this. You will be reported. Pakistani claims do not merit a place here. The conflict is between China and India."
 * 10)  "Why was this removed??"
 * 11)  "Very necessary to mention the source to be american."
 * 12)  "Please do not make such edits in the casualties section."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 963084026 by Wped87 (talk) Serious injuries are being mentioned. And the numbers have to be comparative. There are no numbers on Chinese injured. There is figure only on killed or seriously injured. Please discuss at the Talk Page before making such major edits. Further the dates earlier were correct."
 * 14)  "Undid revision 963080653 by Greatvictor999 (talk) It has already been discussed in the talk page and consensus has been reached to use the word 'casualties'. Casualties itself means dead or serious injury so no need to mention it again."
 * 15)  "Undid revision 963065909 by Mr.User200 (talk) See this : https://twitter.com/PBNS_India/status/1273144011507806209?s=19 . Prasar Bharti is India's national state-run TV channel. So it only tweets after conforming with the government."
 * 16)  "These reports are from 16th June. On 17th Indian Army has officially denied any such captivity news. Today Prasar Bharti also put out a tweet regarding the same. The brief time for which some soldiers were held has already been mentioned in the sub section of Galwan clashes. Please, do not do such edits based on speculations which have already been denied"
 * 1)  "These reports are from 16th June. On 17th Indian Army has officially denied any such captivity news. Today Prasar Bharti also put out a tweet regarding the same. The brief time for which some soldiers were held has already been mentioned in the sub section of Galwan clashes. Please, do not do such edits based on speculations which have already been denied"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 China–India skirmishes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2020 */you’re missing the point"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes
 * 2) Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes
 * 3)   "/* Should we refer to Xi Jinping as 'Paramount Leader' or President in this article. */re"


 * Comments:

Editor was warned very clearly about 3RR almost 24 hours ago, since they made at least 11 non-consecutive unambiguous reverts in the preceding 24 hours. They’ve now made 4 non-consecutive reverts in the last 6 hours alone and 6 over the last 24 hours. — MarkH21talk 09:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What this article really needs is WP:ECP due to frequent addition of misinformation by small accounts. That will quell edit wars. Orientls (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Trojanishere is warring with established accounts, while the article does need ECP it won’t solve this particular issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 My defence:  I am sorry for the multiple reverts but there has been very frequent addition of wrong info from newly created accounts. These edits have been very damaging to the page and as the page in question is an ongoing event, it is being visited in huge numbers. So, in order to maintain Wikipedia's standards I had to do some reverts. Further, the topics on which edits were made were still being discussed at the Talk Page. These accounts without going through the Talk page or participating in it, directly changed info in the infobox. Further, my arguments were backed by citations. Trojanishere (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Trojanishrere, here it would be better if in your defence, if you can explain do you understand where you have done wrong regarding 3RR rule and what you will keep in mind in future to avoid such. Because in simple words you have violated the 3RR guidelines multiple times. I don't know what you did on 19 June, but seems you have exceeded the limit multiple times itslef on 19 June even after bought the matter to your notice.
 * Comment:

Again if we consider of 20 June, there were no newly created accounts from where damaging edits were made as mentioned in your comment and all contents are based per esteemed RS. On 20 June you removed reliable sourced content here at 04:43 20 June (UTC), again here at 07:11, 20 June 2020, and here again at 07:13, 20 June. , restored per BRD here at 07:20, 20 June 2020‎. Whereas you have participated discussion here at 09:57, 20 June 2020. After that you should not have pursued the reverts. I added the materials which were per reliable source like WSJ, NYT, PTI etc here 13:00, 20 June 2020‎, but rather than conscious argument you were making self percieved comments (China denies no where reflects in Chinese official statement), and made these two edits here and here, which were absolutely unecessary when you have already violated the rules. When I've asked you atleast three times to self revert the edits that you have done at your talk page, at the article talk page and also at my talk page where you've asked for a clarification, but you did not self revert those edits, which could have been counted in WP:3RRNO and could be perceived that you understand the 3RR rule. Thats why, so that every admin get the notion that you've read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR and understand it and now know where you've done wrong and what you will do in future to avoid such scenerio again, give a fresh explanation without accussing other. Drat8sub (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. User:Trojanishere states they were reverting "very frequent addition of wrong info from newly created accounts." That is not something you have any right or duty to take care of personally, unless the changes are vandalism. Certainly you are not entitled to exceed 3RR while doing so. The only exemptions to 3RR are those listed at WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kisteti reported by User:Deni Mataev (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He uses wrong statistics and simple news articles without sources for the number of Ingush people, instead of trying to resolve anything or come to any kind of conclusion, he ignores any argument made in the talks page, and goes back to edit and revert any change that has been made which is against his liking.
 * Result: User:Kisteti is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have received prior consensus for their change on the talk page. They have reverted the number of people (in the infobox) seven times since 9 June. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Roberto221 reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:31, June 19, 2020‎
 * 2) 18:08, June 20, 2020
 * 3) 21:42, June 20, 2020
 * 4) 22:23, June 20, 2020

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

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

Comments: Also violated 3RR at Bruce Lewandowski.


 * Result: Both editors warned for edit warning. More background for the dispute may be seen at User talk:Bloom6132. (See the insightful comments by User:Elizium23). Bloom6132 has experience in taking articles through the GA process but Roberto221 has done previous work on Catholic bishops. Apparently there is a usual practice which has been followed in the past by members of the WP:CATHOLIC WikiProject. If you guys disagree, and if you require a new style guideline for bishops or an WP:RFC, then get the process started. There is no carte blanche to keep reverting just because you are both experienced editors. More reverts at Michel Mulloy or Bruce Lewandowski or may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Roberto221 reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: See warnings given above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:30, June 19, 2020
 * 2) 18:08, June 20, 2020‎
 * 3) 21:43, June 20, 2020
 * 4) 22:24, June 20, 2020‎

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

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

Comments: Also violated 3RR at Michel Mulloy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom6132 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Matthewmorrison34 reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Blocked as sock by another admin,)
You can end this notice. The user is an confirmed sockpuppet of another user who has been using hundreds of different accounts/IPs to vandalize Wikipedia, he's permanently banned. You can archive this, no action is further needed. --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:20, 20 June 2020
 * 2) 22:20, 20 June 2020
 * 3) 22:36, 20 June 2020
 * 4) 22:54, 20 June 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (made after he reverted me 4 times, but I have warned himself priorly in the talk page of Alicante)

Comments: This user keeps deleting data backed up by sources, for an unknown reason and he doesn't even bother to check the source, it's just deleting/reverting the data. I am also aware he is a sockpuppet and I have started an investigation for that. I might suggest a semi-protection of this page for this same reason. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not deleting data, I am deleting a sentence that is NOT backed up by sources and I explained the reasons in the edit summaries of the page Alicante. This claim is proved WRONG by the OFFICIAL DATA of both locations, yet User:TechnicianGB kept on reverting the edits that me and other users (probably members of the city-data.com forum which I am part of and in which we talked about this anomaly) do, even when there was NO source. Today, he inserted a source from a FAKE and UNOFFICIAL Alicante Airport website, whose weather data is not even minimally similar to the one from AEMET (January mean is 11 instead of 13.3 etc.) and keeps on reverting my and other users' edits despite all of our explenations, which through the use of actual data have DISMANTLED and UNPROVEN the claim. I invite you to look at the edit history of Alicante to see that. Also, User:TechnicianGB mentions warning me of the 3-revert rule, but that's only in edit summaries and he started no discussion at Talk:Alicante, which I learned that per WP:BRD is where he should have gone after the original revert. Plus, he left a single warning at User talk:Matthewmorrison34 and then started the ANI before I had edited again. This shows that User:TechnicianGB is also breaking No personal attacks.

Matthewmorrison34 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)User:Matthewmorrison34

Wrong, that claim was there since November 2016 and an IP (not an user, suspected to be a sockpuppet of this user) deleted it in 18th June 2020 which I deleted after. I even inserted a source backing up that text but this user keeps deleting it and making an edit war, the discussion at Talk:Alicante should have been started to delete something that has been there for almost 4 years. Also, this user is doing personal attacks against me at the page User talk:Subtropical-man but that's another topic I didn't mention because it's unrelated, yet I see this user is now mixing all up and doing a copypaste of what another user wrote in another page (for example I have opened a sockpuppet investigation for this user) to try to make a point, I still see an edit war created by this user or one of his sockpuppets. --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: TechnicianGB just brought Matthewmorrison34 to ANI and SPI, which raises concerns of forum shopping. Additionally, TechnicianGB's claim of I have warned himself priorly in the talk page of Alicante is false, as that was a warning about edit warring at User talk:Matthewmorrison34. Matthewmorrison34 hasn't edited Alicante after that warning. A look at the history of the article shows that both editors are edit warring, and at this time, neither has attempted any discussion at Talk:Alicante. Woodroar (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * N.J.A.  &#124; talk  11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SHISHIR DUA reported by User:Drat8sub (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 6, 7 and again pinging the user 8

Comments: He was warned of edit warring several times and was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing/repetitive unsourced content addition bahaviour and not adhere with the guidelines. The user seems to haven't understand what edit warring or disruptive editing or importance of reliable sources is as same thing persisted in the article of previous season of the league that is 2019–20 Indian Super League season as had to warned here again, tried to make them understand of the guideliens here here. Interestingly their first block was exactly for the same reason, adding unsourced content. Rather than complying with the guidleines that I've addressed to them at the article talk page they became aggressive here at my talk page threatening me and accusing of indecency or having nasty attitute and bringing my notice to the unreliable sources that I have already mentioned, are not relaible source.


 * N.J.A.  &#124; talk  11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: 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:, ,

Warning left on user's talk page:

Comments:

This user does not believe in collaborative work or discussion and insists on removing reliable, sourced content that goes against their opinions. They are here to push a certain POV agenda. They have been edit-warring in almost every article they are editing. Another example is Al-Malikiyah. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC) What about this, he (k) deleted sourced content about kurdish war crimes. The nom added this back but K keeps delete sourced content to move this to one pov point.
 * Comment: (عمرو بن كلثوم = Nom; Konli17 = K) : K made his/her first edit on 5/26/2020. Nom completely reverted K's edit no less than eight (8) times! One other editor tried to intervene and restored K's edit; Nom reverted that, too. K's original edit: added a citation; removed one sentence, citation and quote; and some minor stuff. It turns out that all of the "kurdwatch" citation URLs are typos, and so they don't lead to the intended source (should be kurdwatch.ezks.org, not kurdwatch.org). I don't know if having a valid citation would have made any difference in K's original edit or not. (K removed content based on one of the faulty URLs.) Nom does not appear to have made any attempts to explain why he/she didn't like K's edits, but has repeatedly insulted K, starting with calling his edit vandalism, then accusing him of "trying to sneak in removal of sourced content under your claimed cleaning/sequence/English summary; your edit summary is simply not true and not innocent", then "I don't care what you think", and "you are making up facts". Despite K asking for any explanation on the points of the edits, Nom never gives any. The disruptive editor doesn't appear to be K. Normal Op (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:

forces were accused of several serious human rights violations. Many thousands of the city's Arab residents were forced to leave the city and its area. Surrounding villages such as Bir Ashiq were destroyed and their residents prohibited by YPG from coming back. (he k) just deletes this sourced parts. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Normal Op, It seems that you didn't look closely at the links I provided, here you go again. I am not too worried about the Kurdwatch name typo, I am more concerned about a major Washington Post story K deleted in the bulk of the editing, hence the accusation of sneaking in that deletion of sourced information under the cover of typo fixing and reference formatting, etc. If you consider that an insult, then that's your problem. This shows a consistent, persistent attitude of trying to force their POV on other users, and not being open to listen to the other side. Here is another example from another article. As for your claim that I didn't explain my revert to Konli, here is the link of my first response in the Talk page of the article, and here is the link to my second reply to them. I also left a message to them on their talk page, and left detailed summaries in my edits. What is their response? Absurd, completely opinionated and emotional. Here is an excerpt: "but most Tell Abyad residents seem to have preferred this to being part of the Islamic State." Please read through the Talk page before jumping to conclusions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Did not want to write here but this user keep pushing his own (pro-Kurdish bias) in Turkey related articles, changing Southeastern Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia into Northern Kurdistan, Syria's north into Rojava, etc. Changing wordings, adding text without adding new sources, etc. admins should check his history. Beshogur (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * User Konli17 is behaving the same way in YPG International. They have already reverted my edit twice, here and here to remove sourced content from reliable sources with no explanation or attempt to discuss in Talk page. I think it's time for an Admin to step in. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)::::


 * He deleted here also sourced content because it seems he not like it?

[] Shadow4dark (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you are the most active admin on this page. Would you mind looking into this, and into all the contributions of this user? They are continuing with their behavior in multiple articles. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have also noticed this editor’s battleground attitude. He is constantly pushing his POV. He should really stop and respect Wikipedia’s NPOV. Tradedia talk 04:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The user has reverted nine times on this article since 26 May. They have already been alerted under the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a "comment". To use an Anadolu Ajansi article about "YPG/PKK terrorists" who are making flee 50'000 people from Tell Abyad as an argument against Konli17 is strongly POV. And Konli17 has explained his removal on the talk page duly. And the editor has not violated the 1RR rule but discussed the edits at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2605:A601:A1AB:8700:3443:7A78:45E8:4142 reported by User:BaseFree (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Personally I’d call it vandalism that fell into 3RR violations. But then I left a message on another user's page to discuss the problem. They reverted that too. It’s a deliberate attack to erase racism and pretend it doesn’t exist or that it’s not part of them problem--BaseFree (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there's NO PROOF that George Floyd was killed because of his skin color. The cops did not purporsely kill a man because he was black, but you're too stupid to even know that. Stop re-adding it and leave 2020 in American Television alone! 2605:A601:A1AB:8700:3443:7A78:45E8:4142 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s no excuse for your behavior. Just because you like ignoring the proof doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The namecalling isn’t going to make you look any better--BaseFree (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – One week, due to IP-hopping edit war and removal of others' comments. Blocked the /64 range at Special:Contributions/2605:A601:A1AB:8700::/64. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kashwritesback reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the presidential order 2019 is under dispute. Please don't restore until dispute is resolved by admins"
 * 2)  "This paragraph on Presidential order 2019 is under dispute and so removing till the dispute is resolved. Please do not restore otherwise  your account permanently banned as per wiki policy. Thanks!"
 * 3)  "Kindly take consensus before reverting changes. This goes against the policies of Wikipedia edit by all.  You might get banned for disruptive edits."
 * 4)  "Restored previous  references ."
 * 5)  "Removed disruptive edits"
 * 6)  "This whole article paragraph is misleading so removing disruptive edits as per Wikipedia policy."
 * 7)  "The Article 370 has been revoked without taking Jammu and Kashmir Govt under confidence as there was no state govt in place. So the claim Article 370 was revoked in concurrence is misleading. It needs to be contested. I have provided the source link where it's clearly mentioned the article is not revoked with due procedure and is pending for legal validation in Supreme Court."
 * 8)  "/* Presidential order of 2019 */"
 * 9)  "/* Presidential order of 2019 */"
 * 1)  "/* Presidential order of 2019 */"
 * 2)  "/* Presidential order of 2019 */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Article 370 of the Constitution of India (HG) (3.4.10)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2020 */"


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


 * Comments:

I am not sure if this is trolling or not, but this user left this message on my talk page which seems to be combative and asserting WP:PWN. The user seems to have no intent to resolve the matter on the talk page. Instead, they engaged in a combative fashion to assert that their edit was "correct" and even tried blanking their talk page to avoid scrutiny. The user needs to be willing to accept feedback from other editors, and if one or two editors says "stop editing until you can explain this", the user should stop and start a discussion on the talk page. So far I see nothing on the talk page. Aasim 09:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Millzipede (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite including numerous references within the article, the user continues to edit war and revert the page due to their own resistance of acceptance to the truth. This conversation has already been had years previously and the user continued to be disruptive despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. The cast member in question in this particular instance 'Jennifer Gilbert' has clearly stated that she made a guest appearance within the series and is clearly visible within the episode however the user 'Hotwiki' refuses to accept this as a source of truth.
 * First, if you are gonna report someone to ANI, make sure you notified them in the talk page. Second, your edits were unreferenced and if I didn't tell you in the talk page of the article to post a reference, you wouldn't even post it. Third, years of disruptive editing is an exaggeration as I never had an issue with Jennifer Gilbert in the article until this week, when  you posted your unreferenced edits. Fourth, Jennifer Gilbert was hardly a guest as it was a "blink and you'll miss it" cameo footage. You are the one being stubborn with this "guest" label when you could have discussed it in the talk page first and come up with a consensus which didnt happen in the said article.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There's prior AN3 conflict between Hotwiki & Millzipede - Special:Permalink/963723533 Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the source added in the article is merely a tweet, not an actual proof that Jennifer Gilbert ever appeared on the show as a guest. The network that airs the show never credited her as a guest as well.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:Millzipede, is warned not to revert the article again unless they get a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. There is an issue of reliable sourcing, which you ought to get agreement on with others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:31NG10 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Editors reminded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: addition of "volunteer" being reverted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is under 1RR restriction due to Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Despite my explanation at Talk:Bobby Storey the editor reverted without discussion and has declined to self-revert, falsely claiming language used by academics is "sectarian terminology". (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Some academics do choose to use the term “volunteer” to refer to members of the IRA. That does not in itself mean that the term is not sectarian. It is a term that is viewed in much of the UK as being used to give legitimacy to membership of the Provisional IRA, which remains an illegal.

My edit is intended to remove any sectarianism or suggestion of favouritism from the article. The term “member” does not carry the same connotations, and is in fact used without problem throughout numerous Wikipedia articles about the Provisional IRA and other Republican terrorist organisations. The fact that FDW777 is praised in their talk page for their edits on IRA articles, suggests a position that fails to be neutral and I believe has coloured their view of my attempts to use politically neutral language in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31NG10 (talk • contribs)
 * Result: Both editors reminded to avoid edit warring. User:FDW77, wasn't it misleading for you to add the term 'volunteer' using the edit summary 'copyedit'? Please use I hope that everyone will use the talk page to get consensus before adding or removing the term 'volunteer'. Note that until this man's recent death, the term volunteer was not in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed my incorrect statement above that FDW77 had added the term 'volunteer'. Sorry about that. The word was added by an IP earlier in the day. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mabuckle reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 963740326 by Ed6767 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 963677455 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 963677455 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 963677455 by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: proposed deletion of 1985 Cops from Hell Bombing.. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Philadelphia Police Department. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor has a strong POV on this issue, notably creating "1985 Cops from Hell Bombing.", since moved to 1985 MOVE bombing, and refuses all requests for discussion. Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. The editor has done many reverts but has not used talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf reported by User:Richhoncho (Result: referred to dispute resolution OP both editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Comments

The user koavf has this morning reverted the same article 3 times and yet puts on warning on my talkpage after my two reverts. Because this is an ongoing problem I bring the problem here. The matter relates to about half a dozen talkpages of redirects, each redirect is a misspelling, incorrect capitalization of a song redirect which is also tagged as ‘R avoided double redirect’ The matter has been taken around WP by koavf without any resolution in his favour, yet he persists in reverting whenever I remove a wpsong tag for these songs. FWIW, This matter has arisen again because I am systematically removing/adding wpsong tags to redirects. I actually didn't realise/remember this one one of the redirects that koavf likes to curate.

-Richhoncho (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this matter from September last year


 * Original 33R complaint made by Koafv: Richhoncho_reported_by_User:Koavf_(Result:_No_violation)
 * Question raised by Koafv on closer's talkpage: Talkpage of Bradv September 19


 * My attempt at dialogue:
 * 1) Koafv's talkpage
 * 2) Koafv continues to edit during RfC although complains about others doing the same
 * 3) Where are we on tagging?
 * For reference:
 * 1) Council advice : projects to tag as they wish by internal consensus
 * 2) Question from Koafv, decision confirms earlier decision

, why do you return almost a year later to continue the longstanding edit war? What prompted that undiscussed action? El_C 15:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I answered that question on para 3. But to clarify, I have, for the past few days, gone back to checking song redirects, I have already managed to change one which koavf is curating and thus the war resumed. Accidental, but it happened. I was also miffed he thought he was right to put a 3RR warning on my talkpage when he had already made 3 reverts. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you just forgot about the previous edit war, is that what you're saying? El_C 15:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying I didn't bother to check whether that particular page was curated by another user. I am also saying that (with the evidence provided below) that the position koafv is taking is contrary to decisions made by the Council. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Council" has dominion over these decisions, but you left it alone for almost a year (WP:SILENCE), then came back out-of-the-blue to continue the edit war. That's just not on. El_C 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I did NOT come back later to continue edit warring. I continued to do what I have done over several years on multiple redirects without a single complaint except from one person. In fact I have continued to make these edits since September, only now I am systematically going through all song redirects, and, bearing in mind, there is no evidence I am wrong and nobody has complained but one person (where the final calling was 'no violation' for me and koafv unable to find support for any of his thoughts (evidence of this given too). At which point is this edit warring on my part? I even brought it here quickly for resolution to avoid edit warring - please retract your unfounded accusation. Thank you. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , as an uninvolved admin, my evaluation is not an accusation. At any event, I see nothing to retract. And you need not (boldly) shout at me. El_C 17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you say, 'came back out-of-the-blue to continue the edit war' when it is patently not true and I have already gone to great lengths to explain why it is not true. It does not show 'uninvolved admin without sides' Can we start again? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Close:, no. I am closing this by referring both of you to dispute resolution. El_C 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , clarification, please, where would you specifically like me to take the issue? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I leave the venue up to you, but the ( blank ) article talk page would be a good place to start. You have dispute resolution requests at your disposal geared at bringing more outside input to the dispute, if you otherwise reach an impasse. El_C 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWanted_For_Life&type=revision&diff=963974763&oldid=963889419 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Partially blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Drat8sub reported by User:SHISHIR DUA (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: ... and a lot more Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)



Comments: He was warned of edit warring undesirable reverts and not adhere with the guidelines. The user seems to haven't understand what edit warring or disruptive editing or importance of reliable sources is as same thing persisted in the article of previous season of the league that is 2019–20 Indian Super League season as had to warned profoundly again, tried to make them understand of the guideliens here. Interestingly their was exactly for the same reason, adding unsourced content. Rather than complying with the guidleines that I've addressed to them at the article talk page he became aggressive at his talk page threatening me and accusing of indecency or having nasty attitute and bringing my notice to the unreliable sources that I have already mentioned, are relaible source and threatenin' me to run an API. Indeed I'm m endowin' u with the below cited sources and are 1 million percent reliable.
 * for Ogbeche, Cidoncha and Tiri, Juanan, Brown and Augusto, Boumous, Machado, Krishna, Williams, Javi, Johnson, McHugh,Gordillo,Monroy, Grande,Diagne.


 * for Dimas' contract extenstion.
 * for Paartalu's contract extenstion.
 * for Edu.
 * for Bedia.
 * for Jahouh
 * https://www.transfermarkt.com/mumbai-breaks-goa-further-set-to-sign-isl-rsquo-s-most-valuable-defender/view/news/360240 for M Fall.
 * [goal.com/en-in/news/tiri-set-to-join-atk-isl-indian-football/l4dssiya7s6n1povo1h857p97] for Tiri.
 * Furthermore Ogbeche is released by Kerala as proclaimed by Transfermarkt.

I'd request you block for a decent time in order to slacken his boasting and indecent attitude towards all the page collaborators. He, indeed, is pretty sly. All are shattred due his blatant valdalistic reverts. Please let the leading and reliable contributions to page let away highly protective measures. I promise to take care of others as well to do sourced editin' Thaks a million Regards SHISHIR DUA (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a classic case of WP:HA/WP:HOUNDING along with abuse of 3RR rule by the reporter itself. The user who reported is the one who pursued the edit warring and not me and has been reported here Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (case number 3 above) and the page was protected due to this. Even after this case, Shishir Dua simply unable to understand the WP:3RR rules and more evident from this case that the user has iota of knowledge what the user doing here, just copying what I am doing here. My edits were WP:3RRNO where I have removed unsourced content and repeatedly asked ShishirDua to come to talk page or add source for his materials but there was zero engagement and repeated addition of unsourced content by the user. And the user above said "attempt to resolve content dispute by engaging at article talk page", a false statement, it was my talk page and that too after he has done with his 3RR violation and warning by me. The user now just hounding in my contribution as I opened a report at AIV here due to vandalising the page along with personal attack like calling nasty/indecent repeated here too and threatened me by saying "compell us wikipedian to block u", where I was advised to open a case at the ANI. However, instead I open a case here because it seems logical for the edit warring. But the user did exactly the same thing to harass me instead, first opened a report here at AIV by misleading the administrators that he has cited source, which he has never, even after repeatedly being brought to his notice as described when I open a case here. When it was not successful he did exactly what I did by opening this case copying what I did for protecting the page from his behaviour, without even going through 3RR rules which he clearly had broken and didn't even shrugged when it was repeatedly told to him that WP:RS is base of wikipedia. Now this has become a total harassment for me, the user first becoming aggressive and making personal attack at my talk page, then AIV and now this, non of which has any base rather it seems the user don't go through the guidelines or don't even care after multiple times bringing the issues to him and along with that the user has a history of blocks and warnings because of such diruption in wikipedia which the user has removed from their talk page so that it may seem everything about his editing history is good. So my request will be warning the reporter or a minimum block to make the user to step back and get time to read the policies rather than harrassing the fellow wikipedian just because someone pointed out that the user's edit were not per guidelines. Drat8sub (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from reported user
 * Result: User:Drat8sub and User:SHISHIR DUA are both warned. Either one may be blocked the next time they add or subtract a player's name from 2020–21 Indian Super League season, unless they have got a prior consensus in their favor on a talk page. The Talk page is the place where the adequacy of sources ought to be determined, by agreement. For general sourcing, you can use WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (WP:RSN does not like Transfermarkt). One more place to ask is WT:FOOTY. Another point: such voluminous EW reports as the one here are not going to get much patience from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , my reverts were per 3RRNO, the contents were unsourced, and when I first removed, clearly mentioned in my Edt.Sum. that not to add any players' name who are not officially announced and did bring the matter to article talk page. Instead, it continued & I even pinged to bring them for discussion, & if someone totally ignore, what else can one do. And I'm not warned for edits for this article as don't violate any EW policy. And I understand very well, the EW policy and that's why I didn't touch the article since the protection placed. But look the user has again started here without any explanation, most of ShirshirDua's edit are without Edt.Summary and here too, and most interesting, the user adding citation where it clearly saying "set to" (rumour articles), no official announcement of any signing, since FIFA transfer window is yet to open. I mean I can't expect anything more from the user even after all these. You people take care of it, because I can't go without "no edit summary", "rumour article", "zero engagement in discussion" as the article is not only edited by ShishirDua now but a bunch of new editor are also adding unsourced and rumoured names. Drat8sub (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2604:3D08:627D:A00:A9D9:C22:486D:EAC2 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964126237 by Chris troutman (talk) I still don’t care."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964125990 by Chris troutman (talk) I don’t care."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964123773 by CommanderWaterford (talk) YOU HAVE NO POWER AGAINST ME"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * . Ongoing problem with disruptive editing and harassment from the range 2604:3d08:627d:a00::/64. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Two editors reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: No action taken)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

I'm putting myself and ‎Netoholic in for edit warring at Virtue signalling, we've both been at it. I apologise and accept whatever block is coming my way, it is bad behavior that I've been trying to avoid, but I've fallen back into it here. In my defense I have tried to discuss and be civil with Netoholic both at the articles talk page and on their own talk page. Also, a banned editor user:SarahMinuit was editing as a sockpuppet which added to the situation. Sorry again, I'll try to do better in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This post is rich considering that in the very act of edit warring Bacondrum threatened ANI, so falling on his own sword here is just an act he's been prepping to perform. Please review his massive deletions on June 12, his reverts over the last couple days to keep both his removals and the sockpuppet's, PRODing of the article on June 21 as a "dictionary entry" after he'd nuked the page, and finally the baseless AFD on June 22 which would never have resulted in deletion. Bacondrum is clearly not here to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. Hopefully admins will see the WP:GAMING at play on his side, and I suggest the best resolution would be to ban him from that page, so it can be worked on without further disruption. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should own your own poor behavior. How on earth you see owning up to such behavior as gaming the system has me stumped. Yes, I'm falling on my own sword, I fell into edit warring, as have you. We've both been at it, that's not gaming the system it's fessing up. You should try being civil and focusing on edits rather than editors. Both of us should not edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm voluntarily taking a break from that article for a while. I will accept an article ban if that's coming my way - if one was to be applied, in the name of fairness, I believe it should also apply to Netoholic. I also think Netoholic's lack of civility needs to be addressed. Bacondrum (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no idea SarahMinuit was a sockpuppet until recently, this is an unfair and unfounded accusation of acting in bad faith. Bacondrum (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you willing to allow the material that Netoholic likes to remain in the article until the AfD concludes? EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm leaving it for good. I've been endeavoring to avoid these situations. Though I think considering their behavior has been as bad if not worse, they probably shouldn't still be making reversions. I'm going to stop following that article, I've got more interesting articles to focus on and that article is a constant POV battleground - I find Wikipedia more enjoyable sans incivility and edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On that note I think Netoholic's repeated bad faith accusations and general incivility should probably be addressed at some point. His comment above is essentially a rolling list of personal attacks, not addressing the issues at hand. Netohloic has made no attempt to discuss changes, his edit summaries are uncivil, the few comments he makes on the talk page are essentially accusations of bad faith. He is also refusing to acknowledge that he has been edit warring too. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bacondrum, you should quit while you are ahead. Lots of text removal from an article prior to an AfD looks silly and doesn't reflect well on you. And if this filing was intended as a sort of apology for your own edit warring then stop adding complaints to it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll leave it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:LSGH reported by User:Cwmhiraeth (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

The most recent revision of that article, before this new user came, was this. I had to undo his edits because he was not providing a reliable source that will support what he was trying to place there. Even this and this both show the same birth place. Because that page showed up at RC, I do not know why a new user would suddenly change that without even providing a reliable source. He then went on to do that four more times, but I responded by placing warning templates on Groomscyrus. He responded with only threats. The ugly part here is that users are given leeway (see WP:NOT3RR) when they breach 3RR for the purpose of reverting vandalism and other forms of disruptive editing, as well as for the purpose of removing contentious material from BLP articles, which implies that they must be supported by reliable sources. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An additional user attempted to change the same part of the article, but the edit was immediately reverted on the grounds of WP:CITE and WP:RS. I hope this clears me of any undue accusations regarding this. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: and  are both warned. Either of you may be blocked if you again restore a birthplace to the article (whether Tulsa or Montvale) that lacks a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers reports from low&middle income countries
Can Newspapers reports from low&middle income countries (like India and Nigeria) can be added as references?

They can unreliable and biased. VisWNThn (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are at the wrong noticeboard. This noticeboard is to report edit warring. This question is more appropiate at WP:HD or WP:TH. As for the answer, they can if they are considered reliable. If you are in doubt, you can ask at WP:RSN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Socks 01 reported by User:Addicted4517 (Result: )
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:

Comments:

This content dispute does go back further, but this user is simply refusing to acknowledge that there is no reliable proof that the promotion that is the subject of the issue is closed. The links the user has provided do not establish this and the user insists on making connections that are in violation of original research. There is a suspicion of a COI which he has denied but some underlying knowledge appears to be at play here. When I warned him on his talk page he responded with the latest revert. I have reverted it back and promptly made this report. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:113.197.13.138 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)
also in
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi:


 * 1)  "But the Landmark article also states 2012. This makes no sense."
 * 2)  "No. The article says 2012 too. So dont change it to 2013."


 * Conversion to Judaism:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See previous case: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410

IP-user engages in discussion after block in Talk:Java but continues to edit war in List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi, Conversion to Judaism, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

– Austronesier (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The user is constantly making the same edit to the Conversion to Judaism article, despite having been reverted by at least three different users and being asked to raise the matter on the talk page more than once. Île flottante (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 10 days. Previously blocked 31 hours. This user's edits are getting reverted in many different places and they are even triggering the edit filter. It is hard to WP:AGF given their recent behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallachia Wallonia reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964304036 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) This is not vandalism, please read WP:3RRBLP"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964303462 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) This user is accusing people of crimes they did not commit, would you accept this on "Pizzagate" or "9/11" talk pages?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964158908 by Ian.thomson (talk) You can't indict people for crimes that the official reports say they didn't commit, and state it as a matter of fact as you did. Infowars is that way."
 * 4)  "/* Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020 */ removed libel per WP:BLP. Per all the sources in that article and the legal process, nobody "lynched" her, it was suicide. Feelings are not facts"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (blp) (Mechanized Unit)"
 * 2)   "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"


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


 * Comments:

Bit of a reach to justify CRYBLP over refactoring another editor's talk page comment, three times.'Nuff said about comparing editors to Inforwarrior types. —— Serial # 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So it's now allowed to indict people for crimes they were proven not to commit? I'm sure that's a reasonable reason to refactor a talk page comment that's not even on topic. Apparently, you can state as a matter of fact that a proven suicide was a murder by the police, because "some people" dispute it, and one source from the highly partisan World Socialist Web Site - that's only being used to cite two trivial things on the article - says so? Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thomson explained his reasoning, and the phrase is insufficiently gregarious to justify an exemption from edit-warring. Your next move should have been to discuss it with him on his talk page, or, in the extreme, a noticeboard. Perhaps you are a little over invested in the subject, and the discussion: emotive topics such as this one should have their talk pages—subject to the usual exceptions—policed with a light, not heavy, hand in order to avoid this kind of situation. ——  Serial # 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have invited the reported user to self-revert. I'm waiting to see their response. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be the sensible result, and I'd happily withdraw this report in that event.  ——  Serial # 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User: CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: both blocked for 2 weeks for feuding)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Ping and  as both were involved in the issue before I was, Siddsg did the original two reverts and Robynthehode warned CaradhrasAiguo  and said that they would have reverted if they’d seen it before Siddsg did. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a badly malformed report, as the last two are not reverts as the fourth link obscures the fact I had simply swapped sources from Human rights in Tibet and in the fifth link, I had retained all the sources from the revision prior; the diff between my last two edits makes the source retention abundantly clear. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes most of the sources were retained but you still deleted the section of text your first edit deleted... Its clearly a continuation of the edit war. There is no excuse for five reverts in a row without a peep on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've blocked both CaradhrasAiguo and Horse Eye Jack for 2 weeks for feuding. This edit war is just a continuation of that feud.  Siddag did revert twice, and should be careful and consider BRD, but their behavior at this page is not nearly as serious a concern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:KermitO reported by User:Hipal (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:06, 20 June 2020
 * 2) 18:59, 22 June 2020
 * 3) 19:11, 22 June 2020
 * 4) 21:50, 22 June 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:34, 22 June 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring in a WP:BLP over trivia on the WP:FRINGE topic of morphic resonance, shortly after the article was protected because of disruptive editing partly about morphic resonance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. The self-importance of Wikipedia editors is astonishing. Yet at the same time, they take for granted their role in privileging certain ways of constructing knowledge. It only becomes an "edit war", when someone disputes their willy-nilly reversion of someone else's edit. Because 'they' say something is trivial, or "non-notable", it must be. It's absurd. In every instance, I justified my edit, and it was reverted, anyway. So, I suppose, I should just accept the "superior judgment" of the wikilords? I'm cool. The difference between me and you dweebs? I don't actually care that much. If it gives you a hard-on to "win" on the internet in an argument over the significance of an edit, you can have it. Congrats. --KermitO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins handling this case should be aware of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the Sheldrake article. A cabal of heavily sceptic editors, numbering five or six and including the editor who reported the case here, have basically locked down the article. It's a kind of extreme WP:OWN issue. No one can edit that article without their permission and anyone who tries to do so is reverted on site. Have a look at the current Talk page and the most recent archive to get a flavour of the problem we have here. We also have an involved admin who's protected the article, and an ongoing case at the BLP Noticeboard. is the latest editor, acting in good faith, to fall foul of the cabal. I would urge you to address the underlying problem here, rather than sanctioning an editor who was merely trying to add content. Arcturus (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:KermitO is risking a block for edit warring and personal attacks. In addition, there is a problem with editors new to the topic area getting inspired to 'fix' Sheldrake's article, which has a long history here of major struggles. Under WP:ARBPS an administrator could apply WP:ECP as a discretionary sanction. This would increase the chance that people arriving and wanting to fix the article might be familiar with our editing standards. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well Sheldrake's article certainly does need fixing. Current "editing" standards there leave a great deal to be desired. In essence, the article has been hijacked by fanatics. Incidentally, Kermit wasn't trying to "fix" the article at all. He simply wanted to add a piece of sourced popular culture material, but the Cabal wouldn't allow it. Arcturus (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now. Getting support from others in a talk page discussion is the best way to get significant changes made in this article. The comments about 'wikilords' are verging on WP:Tendentious editing so I hope they won't continue. If you review the 21 talk archives you'll see that the current version of the article reflects wider opinion than just a 'cabal of heavily sceptic editors'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 reported by User:JShark (Result: Blocked)
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)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to invite the user to specify the reason for their edits on the talk page and thus avoid an edit war. Thus all the editors can reach a consensus on the talk page. --JShark (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The user had already been blocked by an edit war in the article about Colombia. Now that same user wants to add the same controversial information again.

--JShark (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Ugh, not this again. I was involved with Collebud88 last year: they would insert superlative statements about Colombia, and when these were removed as misleading or not quite supported by the sources they've cited, they would simply revert (and revert, and revert..) without ever bothering to participate in the ensuing discussions (like this one). As far as I can see from a quick glimpse, the exact same things appear to be happening again: addition of statements showing how great the country is (including ones, like the one about it being a regional power, that were debunked in the previous discussion), stubborn edit-warring when reverted, and no participation in the talk page discussion., if you continue to refuse to engage in talk page discussions and simply revert others, the only thing you can reasonably expect to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)
 * 2)  -> That user does not stop reversing the editions of other users. And the user never wants to communicate with other editors on the talk pages. --JShark (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Not their first block. This user has never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:602:9d00:3970:3d00:cceb:67af:88c7 reported by User:El_C (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:40, 24 June 2020


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:48, 24 June 2020
 * 2) 23:12, 24 June 2020
 * 3) 06:23, 25 June 2020
 * 4) 06:31, 25 June 2020
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:27, 25 June 2020

06:31, 25 June 2020 * Lourdes 14:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User:Theboycaoimhs reported by User:Bastun (Result: Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been blocked indefinitely at SPI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Incorrect information changed to reflect that Fingal is not a designated county in Ireland. It is an administrative region"
 * 2)  "Fixed incorrect content. Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland and the references used to support this claim refer to the break up of Dublin County Council into three distinct regions"
 * 3)  "Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland. Incorrect information"
 * 4)  "Changed incorrect content. Fingal is not a county in the Republic of Ireland. This is false information."
 * 1)  "Changed incorrect content. Fingal is not a county in the Republic of Ireland. This is false information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

One Two


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Fingal is not a county */ r"


 * Comments:

New user, has only edited this page. Ignored edit summary warnings from, talk page warnings from me. A case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the content they keep reverting is well referenced. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been at SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:SalahGood (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'd also like to put forward several other incidents with the user. 1) Good faith warning at my talk page despite no bad faith editing. 2) False vandalism accusation at edit summary despite my edit being WP:NOTVANDALISM. 3) Shouting at me in edit summary. 4) Warning me of edit warring at my talk page after he violates 3RR. 5) Bad faith response and threats following edit war notice. SalahGood (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SalahGood with a a account of 72 hours of created, is reverting and disruptive editing Turkish related articles, the same way User:Maistara (a proven Sock of User:Gala1900 did). There is a investigation of Sockpuppetry in this case.

Both editors dit the same articles and have the same POV pushing.

During the investigation me and another editors, were warned that User:SalahGood was likely a Gala1900 Sockpuppet here.

Most conveniently a SPI investigation was caried out and 3 accounts were blocked by a admin at: who were confirmed to each other, and to:
 * - Sockpuppet that reverted my edits.
 * - SockPuppet of Gal17928 - Blocked at 06:53, 22 June 2020
 * - A sleeper account of Maistara with no edits, (to revert later.)
 * - SP
 * - SP

SalahGood account was created at 09:38, 22 June 2020 and all his/her edits were to restore Maistara edits.

See here: Maistara edits (Blocked SP) - SalaGood edits.

Even more, the same time User:Maistara complained my edits, User:SalahGood was reverted all my edits. Maistara complains about my edits and call me False SalahGood revert my edits. 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4 revert Both use the same worlds and criteria.

The SPI Check ended before SalahGood account was created, the investigation was not filed yet, and i requested to include SalahGood, because he was reverting back all Maistara edits after he was blocked.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Operation Spring Shield placed under extended confirmed protection for one month due to socking concerns. This will make it harder for newly-created socks to edit the page. Note that the filer of this report, User:SalahGood, who has 46 edits, is named in a current SPI whch is waiting for evaluation. The participants here are surely aware the page is under 1RR and that blocks can be given for that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: FobTown will abide by the RfC)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964317750 by MarkH21 (talk) no further comments for days, no conclusive agreement was reached"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964067385 by Mx. Granger (talk)  we had no agreement"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 961879523 by MarkH21 (talk) we did not reach a consensus yet."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is reverting multiple editors who are enacting by  as:  Clear-as-day WP:IDHT edit warring to remove the entire text (option 4 in the RfC) from an editor who was previously blocked for edit warring on this very article. — MarkH21talk 21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * RfC was closed without an agreed consensus from either parties, there was no further comment since June 11, 2020. Furthermore, Mx. Granger wasn't involved in the later discussion for a while and suddenly pops up to revert it unilaterally? FobTown (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is really a WP:CIR issue from FobTown (whose username is a pejorative term by the way). The closing statement of There is clear consensus for 2a does not somehow mean closed without an agreed consensus, and not all parties have to agree for there to be a consensus. — MarkH21talk 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no it was not. The consensus is unambiguous for 2a.You can start a new discussion to further refine the text, but 2a is the version that has consensus. Guy (help!) 09:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Shows that MarkH21's attempts to implement the disputed passage was rejected twice on June 11, 2020 by myself and then User:Horse Eye Jack. Thus my June 11, 2020 revert does not count towards the 3RR. FobTown (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:FobTown should be blocked for editing against the result of the WP:RFC. Perhaps they will respond and make some promise about their future editing that would make a block unnecessary. Since the community has authorized sanctions for COVID, they probably don't want admins to take this lightly. FobTown's remarks above suggest a lack of understanding of the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Now I understand where I was the wrong, this will not happen again, and I'll agree to abide by WP:RFC from now on. FobTown (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. User:FobTown has agreed to abide by the WP:RFC in future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:91.110.151.147 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964491897 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964487440 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) How is it not relevant? It's a wikipeda page about a person's career. That career is still on going but you, as a politically biased individual who shouldn't be editing anything, only want to portray the old stuff so you can paint him as a current far-right activist which he is not. You are deliberately trying to mislead. Why?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964478545 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) Can you stop deleting out Jack's current career. He has left right wing media and he has published and number of books, one which calls out far-right extremism. These are actual, factual things that can be proven. What does anyone gain from you hiding these facts?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 964476665 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Please stop trying to distort his profile by deleting provable facts that show Jack Buckby is no longer a far-right activist let alone an activist of any kind and is an author and research associate with no links to the far right whatsoever. No one is denying Jack's former involvement in the far-right, but it is untrue to suggest that this is still the case. The actions to hide this information seem politically biased, in which case the editor in question should be investigated"
 * 1)  "Please stop trying to distort his profile by deleting provable facts that show Jack Buckby is no longer a far-right activist let alone an activist of any kind and is an author and research associate with no links to the far right whatsoever. No one is denying Jack's former involvement in the far-right, but it is untrue to suggest that this is still the case. The actions to hide this information seem politically biased, in which case the editor in question should be investigated"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
 * 2)   "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ +"
 * 3)   "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
 * 4)   "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
 * 5)   "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ r"


 * Comments:

User:Ralbegen reported by User:91.110.151.147

User keeps undoing revisions that demonstrate that the person the page is about is no longer involved in the far-right due to their own opinion and political prejudice. The talk page will show that their opinion as well as being irrelevant in providing factual details of the person's career is also in the minority as other users also disagree with their attempts to skew the information in order to paint the person in question as an active far-right activist.91.110.151.147 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * – for edit warring by User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kisteti reported by User:Deni Mataev (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He was warned earlier to not edit until a consensus was reached.  The issue regards the infobox and the number of Ingush people. Where he uses false numbers, from unsourced articles, and misuses otherwise official government estimations, which say something different than what he says. He refuses to settle the dispute in the Talk page, and only reacts whenever the page is reverted. I additionally opened up a thread on the DRN, but he doesn't respond there either, showing that he is unwilling to compromise. Several people other than me have seen the issues with his edits, but he refuses to reach any agreement and claims his edits are reverted out of spite and hostility towards his nation. Deni Mataev (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:Kisteti has continued to revert the population figure in the infobox since 21 June in spite of being warned in the last AN3 to get consensus first. Checking the talk page shows there is no sign of any consensus at this time. Up to the present, there has been a three-person discussion where nobody else supports Kisteti's numbers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW reported by User:SmartyPants22 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said on talk page of List of current ships of the United States Navy that I just hope SmartyPants22 can move all sections to the new layout in one edit prior to change this list, rather than making it into a semifinished article. (with new layout only applied to commissioned section that not reach the half of the full text and remaining sections is unchanged) As for "Previous version reverted to", it should be this version, because I was waiting for SmartyPants22 to move remaining sections during days between this version to his version, but he didn't. UBQITOSW (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:UBQITOSW, you don't get to veto the method by which SmartyPants22 is hoping to restructure the article. The simplest outcome here is a block of your account for edit warring. If you want to make some other concession about your future editing, that might be enough to avoid a block. For example, you could promise to wait for agreement on the talk page before editing again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:UBIQITOSW is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Initial edit


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

see Talk:McKenzie method/Archive 1
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * I think this user is not acting in good faith. They undid my edits, together with some which looked unproductive, all with a single insulting edit summary: . Subsequently, they are trying to misrepresent a source by omitting its principal finding entirely and incorrectly reporting its findings about research in the area. The user's approach, including this report, seems deliberately confrontational and aggressive, all in pursuit of preventing the article from accurately reporting the sources. Brakkar (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice also that the claimed 4 reverts are nothing of the sort. They represent different edits intended to improve the article as I learned more about what was in the source; had I merely reverted to a single old version, that would be quite a different state of affairs.Brakkar (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are the most obvious, flat out "undo" reversions. You'd been warned about edit warring so should know by now what a reversion is - thinking your reversions are somehow okay suggests continued disruption is likely. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The user has made a very unpleasant personal attack on the article talk page, in the section which supposedly represents their attempt to resolve the situation. It is not possible to assume any good faith in their actions at this point. Brakkar (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Any "very unpleasant personal attack" needs to be reported to WP:AIN. But familiarity with WP:WIAPA is suggested before going there. You've already said you are not assuming good faith; no need to repeat it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. In the future, consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:223.191.50.165 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Partial block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964735313 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964734196 by Dimadick (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964733851 by Dimadick (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 964731086 by Dimadick (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:


 * Result: Partial block for one month from License to Kill. Special:Contributions/223.191.0.0/18 blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate for edit warring and block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User: My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (first time the whole section was deleted)

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

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

Comments:

The user has a long history of vandalising articles be deleting large sections (-4,493‎ symbols this time) along with reliable sources. He first vandalised the article back in February 2019 by deleting around 10,000 symbols without any discussion (some of the information, including this section, was added by me). I restored and improved the article since, but now he deleted the whole section once again while keeping WP:WAR. AveTory (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I self-reverted and started discussion on talk . This is a poorly sourced contentious content about the person inserted by AveTory. Right now it appears that I made only one revert on this page (not counting my first edit, I am not sure if it was a revert), and AveTory made two. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – It takes four reverts to break the 3RR rule. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You would think that good sources must exist for such a widely known political figure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:95.148.249.169 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964489937 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) User needs reminding - None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
 * 2)  "None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964476979 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) Can you stop reverting this edit. There is a floating 'Jack' under the page heading and above the leading bio. Also see talk page for discussion RE: current career."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 964474855 by SuperGoose007 (talk) Hey - See ongoing Talk page discussion"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 964474095 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) See ongoing Talk page discussion"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 964458499 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Buckby isn't known for being an author; he is known for being a far-right activist. Leading with him being an author is misleading when you consider why he has a wikipedia article to begin with. Please stop vandalising the page."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 964456296 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Previous editor is insisting on including unreliable sources. I think it's fair to say Buckby isn't a far-right activist or a counter-extremism expert. He is a political commentator that was a prominent far-right activist."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 964419443 by CommanderWaterford (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user was warned by several other users on their Talk page but has continued to engage in edit-warring behaviour. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by Usr:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:109.245.37.148 (Result: Editor reminded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would like to ask admin to take into consideration that filer had removed template messages from the article around the same time of this report, that there is ongoing discussion on TP regarding temp.msg's justification, and that removal of these msg's is highly contentious and biased. Moreover, IP themselves never participated in these discussions, but this fact did not prevent them from making "TP consensus" explanation in edit-summery. Whole thing concerns blatant COI on the part of the creator and their WP:OWN-like activities, all of which can (and will) be proven with simple contribution overview evidences and edit diff's, so I am already creating a report myself on these concerns, but I can't produce such WP:Open a COIN just-like-that, I am reading everything that I can find on COI and AB, and also to see if and how I can incorporate WP:OWN concerns.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to point out that the total of 5+ editors have been against the inclusion of tags. Rather then discussing first, the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Five editors with only one of them providing sensible argument by saying it is not way forward, the rest, and you have been one of them, "arguing" repeatedly how there is no consensus to accept the temp-msg's. Consensus isn't about counting rejection votes but measured weighing of legitimacy, adequacy and sensibility of all expressed arguments, whereas "you have no consensus" argument is not particularly persuasive one ! For the rest of your comment, I wonder if you can provide any meaningful evidence, while I must express also my bewilderment at your ability to find me anywhere.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BATTLEGROUND; actually serious concerns have been raised as well as questions - for example what is the basis for "systematic bias tag". The choice to Stonewall did not bring us anywhere, now did it?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have requested evidence for the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included. Just yesterday you have been warned for trying to weaponize administrative processes against ideological opponents on AE request on Mikola22.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One man's opinion is quite okay. Once again, take the time to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and do take your own burden for edit-warring rather then making it about other editors and their work, which is the only mature thing to do.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Santasa99 is reminded that tags, like any other article content, require consensus to remain in the article. Consider opening an WP:RFC about the tags if you are afraid that the opinions on talk might reflect only one particular national perspective. Blocks are possible if people continue to revert tags back and forth. It is a bit surprising that negative reviews of Malagurski's work are so hard to find, but we are limited by what reviews are actually out there, and Malagurski presumably shows his films mostly to friendly audiences. If anyone believes there is a COI please open a complaint at WP:COIN. I'm also semiprotecting the article because the sudden appearance of an IP to do nothing but file at AN3 and revert the article doesn't appear to be in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:71.121.168.187 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* People */"
 * 2)  "/* People */ her name is dumped at the bottom of the alphabetical list specifically because it is not longstanding. When she is the only person on this list who never worked at ADF or worked at Blackstone, it's misleading to include her. You don't want her included to accurately reflect facts on this page, you want to include her because of your animosity towards the organization. You know your motivations and should hold yourself to a higher standard."
 * 3)  "/* People */ A plethora of sources do not. She is most known for working as co-counsel with an organization? That's simply not true, and not the way the legal world works. This is intentionally misleading because of your negative viewpoint on the organization, and so you've attempted to tie someone with the loosest of connections. As a public news source Wikipedia needs to hold itself to a higher standard than allowing this kind of bias."
 * 4)  "/* People */ Lisa Biron never worked at Alliance Defending Freedom, as is noted. She worked as co-counsel with the organization on one tax-related issue. Listing her under people, as the only individual not in alphabetical order, is entirely misleading and only done so because of her negative character to make the organization look bad. Every other individual on this list has concrete ties and affiliations with ADF."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * , clear reverts and edit warring on multiple articles; 3RR at Alliance Defending Freedom. Kuru   (talk)  20:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:50.96.7.92 reported by User:Headbomb (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added "Ugric" to the list of proposed language relationships. It's fair to revise but not to completely eliminate this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 964817821 by Austronesier (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964793736 by Headbomb (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 964793736 by Headbomb (talk)"


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


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

IP Warned against adding predatory-journal supported research multiple times, violated WP:3RR (this without a specific warning). Reverting + Semi-protection should be able to deal with this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Three clear reverts and another that adds the same material.  Kuru   (talk)  20:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:VenusFeuerFalle reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ("canonical" is not verified in that source)
 * 2)  ("not sure that exactly was grammatically incorrect here")
 * 3)  ("I just readded something, another editor deleted")
 * 4)  (editor now removes the entire paragraph, even though that is relevant and verified material: POINTy)
 * 5)  ("so why are you leaving out the second part?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. More warnings: User:Faissaloo opened a thread on ANI, which also involved edit warring and problematic editing in this article, and User:Leo1pard has also weighed in. Note that this dispute, narrowly speaking, began with Faissaloo making this edit, with the correct edit summary, "Remove assertion that this was canonical". There are two problems here: the addition they kept reinserting is ungrammatical, "Although the story does not go back to Muhammad himself, the story gained wide popularity among Muslims to an extent the story became 'canonical'", and the material is not verified in that source (which doesn't contain the word "canon", by the way--it has an interesting discussing on ... well never mind, that goes too far, but it doesn't claim this). And because the material is not verified, I can't even fix the grammar and be assured that it is properly verified. And on top of that, the editor is edit-warring. The last two diffs are simply POINTy: their question, "why are you leaving out the second part?" is easily answered: that second part is the ungrammatical and unverified material. There is a second ANI thread, started by Venus themselves, accusing Leo1pard of blah blah blah. Venus may well end up getting a topic ban or other censure there, for original research, edit warring, and personal attacks, but let's get this edit warring out of the way first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:OktaRama2010 reported by User:AlgaeGraphix (Result: Both warned)
Page: (subsequently )

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  at 16:37, 26 June 2020
 * 2)  at 17:04
 * 3)  at 18:57
 * 4)  at 06:08, 27 June
 * 5)  at 06:12
 * 6)  at 06:13


 * Related behaviour:


 * 1)  (OktaRama2010 removed link to disputed page at 16:40)
 * 2)  (OktaRama2010 improperly tagged a page Db-g6reason=Obviously created in error while it was part of a Requested move discussion)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (Nonetheless, experienced editors should be well aware of the edit warring policy.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Attempt to edit talk page failed because of constant moving and removing of page)

Article edit summaries:
 * OR: redirect to ABA, see id:kategori:jalur kereta api aktif di Indonesia
 * AG: restored; what does WP:ID have to do with this?
 * OR: there is no railway segment jakarta surabaya you can check id wiki
 * AG: There is no ARTICLE at WP:ID. Google Earth clearly shows the existence of the railway.
 * OR: just google?? See http://mop5.dephub.go.id/Sebaran/index/a1/1 about railway segments
 * AG: Nope. I don't understand the continued denial of it's existance
 * OR: revert, no consensus for move

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:
 * 1)  at 14:24, 27 June 2020
 * 2)  at 16:46
 * 3)  at 17:42

Comments:

also seems to think that WP:ID takes precedence over WP:EN. 
 * Result: User:OktaRama2010 and User:AlgaeGraphix are both warned. Either of you may be blocked the next time you revert at Draft:Jakarta–Surabaya line unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on a talk page. If there is actually an express train service called Argo Bromo Anggrek that runs over this segment you should be able to link to a published timetable. If you believe that proper sources can't be found consider nominating the page for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:KungFuBlackjack reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Related behaviour at PASOK (which saw similar edit-warring issues):
 * 1)  "Your edits in the Ciudadanos page are proof of your unreliability. National-liberalism cannot be attached to the right-wing to far-right Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the centre to centre-right Ciudadanos in Spain at the same time. And why not acknowledge PASOK's shifts that spanned across multiple elections when you're concerned about those of Ciudadanos that haven't lasted long enough to be anything but temporary"
 * 2)  "Why are you so concerned about this? Are you a biased member of SYRIZA or an editor who's hiding behind a changing IP address in order to promote political propaganda as a gang that pretends to be a think tank? I tried to reach a consensus after noticing multiple incidents of edit warring over the last year but you can see my arguements on New Democracy's and Ezhao02's talk page. And since you're Greek, you're supposed to retort to my statements instead of pretending to be anaware of their truth"
 * 3)  "Since I am a new account, why am I supposed to give sources instead of other more experienced users that have been edit warring over the last year without reaching a consensus?"
 * 4)  "We can continue in my talk page instead of edit warring. But you probably want to situationally change the listing of party ideology without reaching a consensus, which is exactly what happened with Republicans and Democrats in America"
 * 1)  "Those shifts did not have to do with party leaders, whose tenure was particularly long for West European standards by the way, but bigger changes in Greece's society that concerned the Maastricht treaty and the Eurozone"
 * 2)  "PASOK changed ideology and that's why it became a small party unlike Spain's, Germany's, Australia's and New Zealand's centre-left counterparts. Simitis promised to continue the pro-European reforms of Mitsotakis after the latter's fall due to New Democracy's dominant right-wing. And Simitis was a centre-leaning Prime Minister who was among the last 2 before crisis alongside Karamanlis whose ideas were claimed by right-winger Kammenos that allied with Tsipras only for stopping centre's austerity"
 * 3)  "Since I am a new account, why am I supposed to give sources instead of other more experienced users that have been edit warring over the last year without reaching a consensus?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964910485 by KungFuBlackjack (talk) Stop the edit warring across Wikipedia's political party articles. You are a new account and starting out in Wikipedia like this will only mean trouble. Your changes are clearly disputed by other users, so seek a consensus for these first but do not pretend to impose them above anything else because you may end up violating 3RR and get a block"
 * 2)  "What other people has done over the past years is not our current concern, it is you who is creating a massive edit warring issue over these pages. WP:V is a CORE policy of Wikipedia, and what you are doing enters into original research territory. Please stop this behaviour or further action will need to be sought"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * A discussion took place on 22 June in the article's talk page between an IP user and, but the main discussion on the content issue took place on Ezhao02's talk page. It seems clear the IP is the same person before going on to create an account (which happened on 27 June). I was not involved in that discussion.
 * A minor discussion about the edit warring issue was started on KungFuBlackjack's talk page, but it was responded with this puzzling comment and the fourth revert at New Democracy (Greece) shown above, prompting this report.

Comments:

The user exhibits a clear WP:POV/WP:RGW behaviour, under which they somehow feel that they should "fix" Wikipedia to tell "the truth", disregarding any attempt at providing sources to back up their otherwise purely-OR claims (this is obvious from their edit summaries, but also from their last response in their talk page). I attempted to warn them against starting out in Wikipedia with such an edit-warring historial, but to no avail since they have been keeping the reverting. Nonetheless, the fact that the user's few edits in Wikipedia so far are limited to changing the ideologies from several Greek political party articles may hint to a WP:SPA situation.  Impru 20 talk 13:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:GPinkerton reported by User:Debresser (Result: 48 hours for both parties)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Esther, on Vashti he himself introduced this contentious edit in April,

GPinkerton' edit was already changed once in May, and he reverted that too. The there was the issue of using the word "unlikely" or "impossible", see Talk:Esther where all 3 editors disagreed with his wording but he edit warred about it nevertheless (including today). And he has made a lot more reverts on this page, where he clearly has WP:OWN issues.

Diffs of the user's reverts only for this specific issue:
 * Vashti
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * Esther
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see User_talk:GPinkerton and User talk:Ogress, where he is being super unpleasant to a completely uninvolved editor who also warned him.
 * I warned him here for Ownershop of article after stumbling across the page when looking at my watchlist. has been aggressive and combative on my talk page, on his talk page, and on Vashti despite me saying repeatedly that I was attempting only to stop an edit war in order to get a conversation going again, directing him to discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism where I saw the other user had started a discussion, and so forth. He also reverted my "Don't know what is going on here but please stop it" edit here.  Ogress 21:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your (misquided) attempt to help Debresser edit-war his preferred version. It was obvious you didn't "know what is going on here" and I explained the problem in my edit summary, which did nothing but revert the article to the state it was in before Debresser's latest campaign of tendentious editing. I was already engaged in discussion at that WikiProject, although you may not have seen that, since Debresser was engaged in deleting my comments there. GPinkerton (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we go again: I was not helping anyone, I was stopping an edit war. Ogress 22:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your help twice reverted the contentious material Debresser is trying to shoehorn in back into the article's main-space. So yes, ending an edit war by declaring victory for the aggressor. GPinkerton (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND at bit? Debresser (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again your behaviour is not helpful here, once again resorting to personal attacks. GPinkerton (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue to post on my talk page, it is incredibly inappropriate. Ogress 00:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism.

Further comment He is also being very childish about this, repeating my comment verbatim here...
 * Is it more childish to ignore Wikipedia policy on not misrepresenting reliable sources or to edit war your preferred wording for the fairytale into several articles? I accuse you of both, and of personal attacks, and general credulity and tendentiousness on top of it. GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it to admins here to decide which is more "childish", a tu quoque type of edit or disagreeing with your edit. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps a third possibility, your ultra-infantile deleting of other editors' comments on a talkpage and engaging in personal attacks and religiously-motivated edit warring despite multiple blocks and warning for both? GPinkerton (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reject in the strongest possible terms the accusation of "religiously-motivated" edits. I am a long-term editor in good standing, and rightly so. I ask admins to strongly reprimand GPinkerton for trying to defend himself from his obviously multiple 3RR violations with such underhanded accusations. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reject in the strongest possible terms the assertion of Debresser's being a long-term editor in good standing (see here for numerous counter-examples) or not making religiously motivated edits, which is clear as day to anyone with eyes. GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:GPinkerton
Page: and

User being reported: Users may find this] discussion instructive, where it is noted that Debresser has been blocked more times than can be counted on one hand for edit-warring, and demonstrates no remorse to date. (Most recent block was only last month.) GPinkerton (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is one of a number of personal attacks made on me by in the edit summaries of a highly opinionated and prejudiced editor that has particular views about Judaism and the impossibility of questioning his rabbinical judgement, despite all reliable sources agreeing on the academic consensus Debresser so vitriolically rejects. Here are a view of his immoderate comments, accompanying his incessant claims of ownership of these and doubtless other examples of pages relating to Judaism/Judaic mythology. Diffs of the user's reverts: In which Debresser edit wars his wording into the article, to stifle the reality (consensus thoroughly against Esther or Vashti having any existence independent of the Book of Esther historical novella), and substitute it for pro-Esther myth-making-as-fact. Diffs of the user's personal attacks: on another editor, today, (possibly mispelt from carelessness, possibly to avoid detection) include:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (including removing my comments from a WikiProject talk page.)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Message left on my talk page attacking me as "a very aggressive and unpleasant editor" for trying to follow policy and ensure the Wikipedia articles represent the reliable sources and not the Biblical tradition Debresser professes himself so very much enamoured.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of Debresser's attempt to sabotage dispute-resolution on a talk page by removing my response to his canvassing see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism
 * 1)


 * The diffs are separated by 28 hours, so there is no 3RR violation.
 * That was not "sabotage dispute-resolution", that was removing a very childish remark which has absolutely no purpose but to annoy me. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not for you determine the purpose of others' remarks. If it were, you would be the only editor here, and though you act as though this is the case on such articles as detail your favourite story-book characters, it is not. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone interested would like to know more about Debresser's long history of exactly this sort of thing, see: his block log, with entries little over a month old and stretching back a decade. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Canvassing? Is that how to call taking a dispute to the relevant WikiProject? This is so telling about you and your whole WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to this, ever since you introduced this contentious material in April. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If by "exactly this sort of thing" you refer to the fact that it was me who opened the discussion at WT:JUDAISM after you had violated 3RR and made 7 reverts in the last few days, then yes, I have had blocks in my 11 years here, but in this case with you I have been the adult. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And that is called "poisoning the well". And I can do that too. You have been around less than a year and already I see:
 * User_talk:GPinkerton This editor was unhappy about the Holocaust in Bulgaria, which he would have had the article deny and which I expanded. GPinkerton (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User_talk:GPinkerton This is Debresser himself, trying to be clever about the very same articles. (He was blocked subsequently.) GPinkerton (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User_talk:GPinkerton More religiously motivated attack-editing on a different subject by a another editor.
 * User_talk:GPinkerton Same editor again.
 * User_talk:GPinkerton Same editor again.
 * User_talk:GPinkerton. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And then there is the warning at this same forum. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and then there is the case where you were warned for a real case of canvassing. Once again, you've failed in you research, motivated by anger. I was warned against canvassing, but all agreed I was not guilty of breaching any policy. This is really too vindictive and silly of you, it does you and your fringe opinions no credit. The words NO VIOLATION are prominent here. GPinkerton (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the words "please take this as a warning to respect WP:BRD, and if your changes are reverted, you are expected to gain consensus for them rather than try to force them back into the article" are what you should get through your thick skull here! Debresser (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. You would do well to heed these words when next it comes to your head to insert your POV between the articles' text and the reliable sources and when next you decide to ignore BRD by writing your opinion and then reverting all other editors' changes while insisting your own unsourced edits be left in. Extraordinary that you need to be told this, still. GPinkerton (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What you have proved with these edits is 1.) you have tried to bludgeon me before about keeping Wikipedia in line with your unsourced beliefs, 2.) another editor from a different religion has tried to do the same in response to correcting POV edits, and 3.) Holocaust denial is not a reasonable grounds for adding warning labels. You need to do your research better if you're going to poison the well. It doesn't work if you just pour cold water over your own arguments instead ... GPinkerton (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have no involvement in the dispute above, but have been attacked on four occasions now by Debresser, who has repeatedly inserted an unsourced date of birth into an article and called me a "jerk" on four separate occasions after I objected to it: one and two on the article page, three and four on my own talk page. Please note that the last occasion of him insulting me came after I had a) politely asked him not to and b) told him that I'd looked for a source but none existed. His response was to call me a jerk for the fourth time and accuse me of lying and refusing to add a source because I was "not willing to make even the least effort". Dcfc1988 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think this is relevant here. But since you mention it. Please see this Google search, and understand that you are indeed a jerk for not even putting in the least effort to find a source for a simple statement and just removing information because you are to lazy to put some effort into this project. And that has nothing to do with the whole edit warring issue above, since it was not me who violated 3RR but GPinkerton. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you violated 3RR by reverting my deletion (and 's) of your contentious text which you added, without consensus and without any source, to the articles. And yes, your prior behaviour is relevant, since you have not learned to refrain from violating in your long experience of being reprimanded for exactly that. GPinkerton (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * From what I can work out, GPinkerton violated 3RR with this series of edits. (the third is not an undo, but is effectively a revert as it's changing the same material in a similar way). Debresser did not violated 3RR, but the combination of edit warring, personal attacks and ignoring WP:BRD (the version GPinkerton was reverting to was indeed the stable version) is deserving of a block IMO, particularly given their long history of problematic behaviour, from which they have clearly not learnt. Number   5  7  16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Michaelscott40 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: BLP block, 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Seems that facts and news articles are not allowed.  Two references widely reported about Brennan have been added.  This article has not been updated with recent information. Editors are deleting information reported by NY Times, CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC and citing policy.  Brennan unmasked Flynn, is being investigated, and public statements are not consistent with his congressional testimony.  Is this Pravda?  If you think the language is inappropriate, fix it, don’t delete it."
 * 2)  "Reverted back and tool out provocative language.  All verified facts at this point per Wikipedia policies."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 964847995 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964847995 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 964847995 by Acroterion (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* CNN */ add"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of defamatory content. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* June 2020 */ note"
 * 5)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on John Brennan (CIA officer). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Three reverts by Michaelscott40, but the BLP aspect is troubling. Discussion on my talkpage. Michaelscott40 has blanked the discussion on his talkpage and has not gone to the talkpage after being advised to do so.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I've reverted four times on BLP grounds - the claims made in the edits are not explicitly present in the sources, they are synthesis in Wikipedia's voice. Michaelscott40 notified of BLP and AP sanction regime.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours by User:Drmies for violation of WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:St Malo reported by User:VIGNERON (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/963087577
 * 2) Special:Diff/964941184
 * 3) Special:Diff/964948677

See Talk:Robert_Surcouf

Comments:

A edit war is starting about Robert Surcouf between User:St Malo and user:Rama. User:St Malo first removed and then twisted the fact that Robert Surcouf was a slave trader. The reality is complex and a better wording may need to be find (per WP:DUE), Rama worked on this article to improve it but St Malo attitude is not collaborative and unhelpful. She has been banned on French Wikipedia for bad faith, sockpuppeting, and general unconstructive behaviour (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Requ%C3%AAte_aux_administrateurs&oldid=114922764#Croisade_de_St_Malo_contre_Aubier ). I fear this can only escalate and admin action is needed. V IGNERON * discut. 16:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:St Malo is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:TheMathKing1984 reported by User:SuperGoose007 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed a post that violates wikipedia's terms of use (This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law)"
 * 2)  "Violates terms of service (This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. )"
 * 3)  "This alteration violates the wikipedia terms of service. (This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court..) )"
 * 4)  "==Personal Life==  Zak Smith\Sabbath is not a "public figure" and as such according to the "People accused of Crimes" rules under the "Biographies of living persons" section of the wikipedia terms of service section, mention of accusations are not permitted. Any alternative would involve explaining more details about the recent legal actions filed against all of Zak's accusers, which violates wikipedia's stance against using the platform as a "tabloid". As such, this change is justified."


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


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


 * Comments:

User is wikilawyering and is removing content despite warnings from multiple editors (See page history). Super Goose 007 ( Honk! ) 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Zak Smith article has a history of sock puppets making this exact change with this exact argument. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts. The issue identified by the user is one which is resolved by discussion with other editors, not by repeatedly removing information under the WP:3RRNO/WP:BLPREMOVE provisions. It is also very likely that this user is at least a meatpuppet, so the block is indefinite. Nonetheless, I encourage editors to review the challenged information for appropriate weight and proper sourcing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Keyesie reported by User:Bennv3771 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:Keyesie and Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist).

Comments:


 * Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Keyesie reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit error"
 * 2)  "reading source They I have correct the error"
 * 3)  "Tommy isn’t far right, There is a video out there  with him and Pakistan Muslim"
 * 4)  "Do research before editing this piece"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Two 3RR warnings on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note I made the second warning and as I said, if I had know they already had one I would have made a report. Also This is a new account, and this is all they have done.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely wedded to the current opening sentence of the article, but it was arrived at as the result of a long discussion of this issue and the fact that numerous reliable sources describe him as far right. Some people hate this, but it cannot be overridden by using WP:NOTTRUTH arguments such as "these sources are wrong." And of course it would be better to discuss this on the talk page rather than having edit wars. I don't want to get anyone blocked but WP:3RR is there for a reason.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . There's an identical report above, but maybe I'd better reply here as well. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Daniel.Cardenas reported by User:Stonkaments (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla_Autopilot&oldid=964463227

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has continued to revert to their edit while discussion on the talk page is ongoing, and failing to address the problems raised with their edit. Stonkaments (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Number one above is not a revert. It was balancing the article with positive and negative, for which I was thanked by one user.  The specific content is available lower in the article, last sentence in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Comparisons_and_Awards    Stonkaments has continued to edit warring while failing to address issues raised on the talk page.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both users are at three reverts, so I'd encourage them to continue discussion on the talk page and, if necessary, request comments or a third opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The reported user has even self-reverted their last edit (which brings the situation in line with WP:BRD). Parties are talking at talk page, so no action seems necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

M. Night Shyamalan Page


There have been a couple IP Addresses (pretty sure it is really the same person) who have been editing on the M. Night Shyamalan page for the past 6 days or so and have been adding "Indian-" to the lead. I have tried to engage with the person in both my edit explanations, and earlier this morning, their Talk pages, as to why their edit(s) are against wikipedia guidelines for biographies per MOS:Ethnicity. They haven't engaged on the subject's Talk page section either. I have a strong suspicion that the individual is just going to keep switching IP addresses and continuing with such editing without any communication. I'd appreciate any guidance and help. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC).


 * I think the easiest thing to do is protect the page, but please let me know what you think. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place for this request: this noticeboard is to draw administrators' attention to edit warring, and there is a specific format that must be followed (see the other posts on this page or the instructions at the top). For page protection you should put in a request at WP:RFPP, which also has its own format. I'll take a look at the article anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:93.138.154.254 reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Asked for semi-protection. There was no attempt to resolve the "dispute" on the article talk page because the IP is ignoring or deleting the sourced information which goes against IP's claim. The constructive discussion seems highly improbable.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments: Hi. I did not delete any sources. This user wants to delete everything related to the name Nikola Šubić Zrinski.He has a park called Nikola Šubić Zrinski, the Opera called Nikola Šubić Zrinski, he signed the letter on the picture Nikola Šubić Zrinski, the Order of Nikola Šubić Zrinski is the eighth-ranked honour order given by the Republic of Croatia etc...93.138.154.254 (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IP refuses to understand that the name Nikola Šubić Zrinski is 19th century invention. He didn't sign anywhere as such and there never existed a historical person with such a name variation. IP literally deleted reliable sources and sourced information which clarify the issue and now is claiming it did not delete anything . The IP activity is very similar, perhaps as a possible sock, to IP 93.138.179.92 and 93.138.79.47 who edit-warred about his name a year ago, see talk page discussion Talk:Nikola IV Zrinski.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How did he not sign, and what is written here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_IV_Zrinski#/media/File:Zr%C3%ADnyi_Mikl%C3%B3s-v%C3%A9grendelet.jpg93.138.154.254 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nikola IV and any other member of the Zrinski family never signed as Šubić Zrinski. The letter is signed as Nicolaus Comes Zrínyi (Zriny, or Zryny). You obviously don't know what you're talking about, neither know Latin language.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Writes Nicolaus Subić Zriny, That's not his name. and certainly does not write comes.93.138.154.254 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're or lying or don't have a clue what you're talking about. It is not written Subić, certainly not a letter "ć" because is not present in Latin language, and Comes is clearly written. German National Library has him under other names listed as "Nicolaus, Comes Serin / Nicolaus, Serin, Comes" .--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - This is a known long-term vandal, I have blocked their IP range for 3 months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Escain reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Alexbrn, Jun 25
 * 1) Jun 29
 * 2) Jun 29
 * 3) Jun 26
 * 4) Jun 25
 * 5) Jun 25
 * 6) Jun 25
 * 7) Jun 25
 * 8) Jun 24 (Note by Escain: not a revert, removed content which is wrong https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/fr/home/themes/electrosmog/dossiers/rapport-groupe-de-travail-telephonie-mobile-et-rayonnement.html#832727128 --Escain (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:5G

Comments:

Escain is a new user, with 24 edits, and 22 of them have been related to the article 5G. They have made 8 edits to the article, and every single one has been to revert the page to their preferred version(s). They have reverted four different editors, including myself, during that time. In their bid to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, they broke 3RR on Jun 25-26, although I did not notice at the time. Three days later, they have returned to the article to persist in reverting any improvements/changes that other editors make. They have been told numerous times to stop reverting, but they appear to not grasp the concept. I suggest a partial block from the 5G article to see if they can be productive elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer from Escain:

I try to keep good quality content against two user "Black kite" and "Alexbrn" intentionally making sabotage on 5G content with several editions contrary to Wikipedia policy:

1) Adding content in violation to WP:NPOV: example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5G&type=revision&diff=964561258&oldid=964559309 is adding the following sentence: "and arguments to the contrary are based on a conspiratorial red herring that cites the newness of the technology as a reason not to trust it.", removing "Several Swiss cantons adopted moratoriums on 5G technology." and adding adding a very questionable link.

2) Replacing official references with unofficial one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5G&type=revision&diff=965095645&oldid=965083340 Which replace ref-104 from http://www.5gappeal.eu/the-5g-appeal/ to an irrelevant content.

3) Systematically making editions to manipulate the content of this page in the direction of clearing any reference to Health concern.

In the latest case, I first wrote to Alexbrn to ask him to check/revert back the modified reference, without success, so I reverted the change following Wikipedia rule.

Also consider that there is no 3RR since warning.

--Escain (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: I've partial blocked from editing 5G for 72 hours to see if they can get consensus for their disputed changes on the article talk page.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the point of having a policy to warn users if you apply a ban for previous cases in any case?--Escain (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SamuelTheGhost reported by User:Achaea (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I am aware that this an ethical matter as well that needs to be discussed (whether deadnaming in this case adds any value). However, it seems that the user in question has not waited for a meaningful discussion to take place before reverting to their preference again, even though this version has been reverted and opposed to by several different users and only supported by one other user. I have myself reverted twice, and to stop me from getting involved in an edit war, I'm reporting here instead. Achaea (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I believe quite strongly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: I intended to warn them but was blocked by the DS filter and didn't notice. I have warned them now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:RayanHetti reported by User:Dan arndt (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeatedly advised - see edit history. The user has never provided any explanation as to why they have continually made the same changes to the article (deleting referenced material) even thought and myself have provided explanations as to why the information is valid and should be retained. Dan arndt (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:


 * —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Catwatch01 reported by User:Ummonk (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not 3RR warning but a disruptive editing warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has persisted in removing well sourced material, and adding unsourced content, engaging in several undos of multiple editors' edits. This is an editor whose previous contributions in Wikipedia consisted primarily of vandalism several years ago. Ummonk (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ecleric reported by User:The C of E (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unoffical warning Official warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Ecleric PRODded this article based on an essay, I removed it and explained why he can't rely on an essay for a PROD. We had a reasonable discussion but he then started to add Eddie Murphy to the article without any sources. I told him that behaviour was not appropriate but he persisted even when uninvolved told him not to.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * OR you are losing the argument that the article should be deleted and are now trying to have my edits censored, article previously claimed Patrick Stewart invented race-reversed casting with no casting with no reference, I found an example which is more popular and earlier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecleric (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This source was already in the article for it and I also gave you a link to an interview where Stewart says he came up with photo negative casting. You have added the Murphy claim with no sourcing for it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct term for Eddie Murphy in "The Nutty Professor" can be found on WP's page Color-blind casting (nontraditional casting, integrated casting) - where his role (along with Dr. Doolittle) is listed - and does not fall under the category of race-reverse casting. if you need examples "pre-Murphy", please refer to this article. Eartha Kitt, Louis Gossett Jr., Billy Dee Williams laid the groundwork for Murphy. The defense: "popular" is a matter of opinion. The defense: "earlier" is now off the table. I'm still on your side. I believe Stewart's production should be mentioned in the forenamed article and the page deleted; since the term "race-reversed casting" is mentioned on the "Color-blind casting" page. Regards, Maineartists (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was going to add references however my edits are being undone before I can add them, but by just reviewing the referenced wiki article about the nutty professor, you can see it matches concept. Eddie Murphy is just like Henry Ford, he didn't invent it, but he did make it popular, and I used the same justifications / arguments that Patrick Stewart was previously credited with 'inventing' it Ecleric (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : I have just reverted the article to the C of E's version without Eddie Murphy being mentioned in it as there were no sources to substantiate the claim or change of article photo, nor in the Nutty Professor article either. This sounds like one side edit warring, using WP:OR and opinion, versus cited sources. I might have checked deeper and warned Ecleric for edit warring had I not seen they'd already been warned and brought here. Any discussion of AFD-ing this recent DYK is irrelevant to the disruption currently being caused. I was alerted to this article by Ecleric's apparent WP:FORUMSHOPPING at the Teahouse (here). Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Afer Ephraimite reported by User:Walrasiad (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  by User:Afer Ephraimite (Jun 7) (edits subsequently reversed by User:TheseusHeLl as inadequately referenced)
 * 2)  (Jun 15, 2:15) (with "Berberist" slur)
 * 3)  (Jun 15, 3:15)
 * 4)  (Jun 15, 3:27)
 * 5)  (Jun 15, 7:34)
 * 6)  (Jun 18, 3:01)
 * 7)  (Jun 27, 20:03)
 * 8)  (Jun 27, 20:35)

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

Warnings given on Afer Ephraimite's talk page:


 * 1)  (edit-warring) June 15, 3:33)
 * 2)  (personal attack) (June 15, 5:36)
 * 3)   (ANI notice) (June 28, 00:26)*
 * 4)   (edit-warring) (June 28, 00:26)

Two complaints by User:TheseusHeLl at ANI (no reply by Afer Ephraimite):
 * 1) first (June 16)
 * 2) second (June 28)

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

Entire Talk:Barghawata talk page dedicated to resolving edit dispute (June 15 only) (User:Afer Ephraimite quit replying after User:TheseusHeLl comprehensive discussion of why sources inadequate. No more attempts to discuss after that).

Comments:

Account User:Afer Ephraimite was created June 7, and immediately set about editing the Barghwata page that same day to push a strangely fringe view about the Israelite origins of the Barghwata, a Berber tribe in Medieval Morocco. There are no references supporting his view, and he misrepresents the references he adds. There is more than ample RS references about the Barghwata being a Berber tribe, which he is trying to eliminate to push his view that the Barghwata are some secret lost tribe of Israel.

This is the only page this editor has touched. Given his apparent mastery of Wiki and reference markups, he could be an experienced user with a single-purpose account. I cannot predict a sock-puppet, since apparently this page has not been edited in this way before. Could just be an over-enthusiastic fringe-theory pusher.

There was vigorous edit-warring on June 15, until he finally acceded to take his case to talk page. Unfortunately, it only lasted for a couple of hours. His references were more than debunked, and counter-evidence provided by other users. He hasn't bothered to reply since. Evidently, he lost interest in further discussion on the talk page, and seems to be intent on continuing to just reversing and restoring his edits.

Since this promises to continue to be a problem, and since warnings seem to have had no effect, I would like to request some intervention. Given he is a new user, I would like to assume he is merely overenthusiastic and so a ban may be excessive. But certainly some sort of protection of the page is warranted to nip the edit-war in the bud. Walrasiad (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My concern is Afer Ephraimite's statement that The Encyclopaedia of Islam is outdated and unreliable, while their own source(s) originate from 1908! Perhaps a block is in order to emphasize the importance of using the talk page and addressing concerns there. If the article is protected and once that expires, Afer Ephraimite returns to edit war, then they should be immediately blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Afer Ephraimite is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Since this is a one-sided problem I don't see a need for page protection. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will be enough. Walrasiad (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mjsa reported by User:Neil S Walker (Result: warned, otherwise pending indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 965769682 by Neil S Walker (talk)"
 * 2)  "Sigh - removed again, see chat. Politics is getting in the way of facts."
 * 3)  "Reverted because it overrode the changes which fixed those issues. See chat."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 965768062 by Neil S Walker (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 965768062 by Neil S Walker (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on EncroChat. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on EncroChat. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Joint investigation */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Joint investigation */ header"
 * 3)   "/* Misread source */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Misread source */ hyphen"
 * 5)   "/* Joint Franco-Dutch investigation */ re"
 * 6)   "/* Misread source */ format for clarity"
 * 7)   "/* Misread source */ re"


 * Comments:

Editor persists in removing valid maintenance templates from article without seeking consensus and unilaterally deciding discussions that I have initiated. I consider removal of maintenance templates without resolving the issues to be vandalism, and replaced them a couple of times as seen in page history. Editor clearly has no intention to seek resolution or consensus and their behaviour indicates they clearly intend to continue reverting. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To respond to this. I have been following Wikipedia's standard "revert, block, ignore" policy for dealing with trolls. The reporting user has repeatedly engaged in trolling by making many non-factual and politically motivated edits to one page. When I attempted to action his Talk page feedback in good faith (on the edits of others) - this user immediately went in and created other changes which effectively undid mine without reversion. Mjsa (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Attempting to correct factual inaccuracies is in no way "trolling." Calling my actions "trolling" is a violation of the civility policy. My edits are absolutely not "non factual" - they are the facts as reported by the sources. And "politically motivated"? Get real. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing your maturity here. You refused to discuss these matters in the talk page and edited the page in an aggressive fashion - unwilling to enter any form of discussion on the changes you were making which rendered the article inaccurate. The talk page at this point has shown you had a complete lack of understanding of the changes you were making on the page concerned. Based on your past behaviour (although your talk page is clear, it does have a history) - it is clear you get some sort of pleasure out of this trolling activity. Mjsa (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is also important to note - the user reporting me himself engaged in edit warring with not only me, but another user - showing the hypocrisy of this user trying to use the three-strike process to troll with impunity. Mjsa (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Based on your past behaviour (although your talk page is clear, it does have a history) - it is clear you get some sort of pleasure out of this trolling activity" Diffs please. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In the comment above I mentioned your own history on edit warring on that article (then hiding my own warning - whilst you went to this page to maliciously attempt to ban me) - but at a quick glance through of your own history here are some diffs showing accusations of abuse to other users, edit-warring and accusations of racism from other users. Mjsa (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First diff: IP user at Ministry of the Interior (Czech Republic) who abused the warning template by placing it on my talk page after they were warned for vandalism. Second diff: who abused the warning template - I could hardly have been guilty of edit warring in that instance as I have never even edited the page the user was linking to! Third diff: Read the related discussion at Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom/Archive 1 - random people calling you "racist" is not evidence that one is a racist! There are also safety concerns as the site you are refrring to, operated by a banned editor, is not only incorrect, but that same editor threatened to carry out violent attacks against the family of the person he had wrongly identified as me! This is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place someone at risk of harm outside of Wikipedia, and is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

. I have warned Mjsa about harassment. The edit warring pales by comparison to that violation. Severe sanctions are still possible pending further investigation. El_C 11:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to register to Neil S Walker that I am genuinely sorry for that particular remark - made off-hand in the heat of things either way and I didn't realise the distress or context that could cause. I did not intend to do anything that would amount to harassment and I did not seek to share anything personal that I shouldn't have (and it did genuinely cause me a lot of distress to read your reaction to it and how it made you feel) - but I may have responded disproportionately to the previous point. I think it's best I sign off from this thread either way - I don't think anything good can further come of me participating in this thread. If I disengage here, I think it can help diffuse things - in likelihood we both mean well but have become frustrated in the circumstances. Rest assured though - I have done nothing else whatsoever which could amount to harassment at all - it was an off-hand comment and I have done nothing at all otherwise that could be seen to amount to any malicious off-wiki behaviour at all. to my knowledge I have had no prior interactions with Neil S Walker before today and know nothing else about him other than what I have seen on-wiki. Mjsa (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, Mjsa. For the record, I've emailed the Arbitration Committee about this matter, so this is largely in their hands now. El_C 11:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

. Upon further investigation, I have indeffed the user (used actual url to offsite harassment elsewhere). El_C 12:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added new source stating “ Sources in the Indian government are citing ‘some’ U.S. intelligence reports which claim that 35 Chinese soldiers were killed during the violent clash with the Indian army. The figure, however, is a combination of a total number of soldiers killed and wounded.”"
 * 2)  "Stop removing Indian losses, Trojanishere."
 * 3)  "Removed biased non-third party government source."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 965503992 by Trojanishere (talk)"
 * 5)  "Improvements"
 * 6)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 965503992 by Trojanishere (talk)"
 * 2)  "Improvements"
 * 3)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Improvements"
 * 2)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Improvements"
 * 2)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."
 * 1)  "Added more details and corrections to the casualties section."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 China–India skirmishes. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) "35 Chinese soldiers killed"


 * Comments:

Continuing edit war with and new user / SPA  (who are also edit warring) after 3RR warning. — MarkH21talk 02:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I edited a different section and added a new source. I didn’t undo his work. How is this reverting?


 * “An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.”


 * How is this a revert if I added new material, with a different editor, backed up by evidence?


 * YuukiHirohiko (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to, it undid   from Trojanishere, which in turn undid  . — MarkH21talk 03:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC); updated 06:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the forth edit is not a revert. It was a consensus in the talk page where Indian source to be labeled "claim", no confirmation and no major Media apart from Indian media acknowledge the 43 figure. Please check the talk page and I believe I did the right thing in this case. I also had a discussion with the editor Thanoscar21, which we had discussed this in private talk, where I provided him the "35 casualties, not deaths" evidence piece.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't pointed out where the consensus is. I've pinged you on my talk page, and you still haven't responded. As far as I can see, there's no consensus. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Nivari (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 965801673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk): Don't add tags unless there is a reasonable reason  (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life and media image */ WP:STATUSQUO"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 965773938 by Krimuk2.0: Per WP:BURDEN and WP:STATUSQUO the onus is on you to provide a "newer" source -- failing that you need to start a talk page discussion to gain consensus for removal instead of edit-warring (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 964906563 by Krimuk2.0 (talk): Are you saying she does not live there now? (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2020 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Your disruptive editing */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* 3RR */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

This is a very silly dispute, in which the user I am reporting has behaved very aggressively for no apparent reason. I have tried to communicate with them on their talk page; they have deleted every message. I invited them to undo their fourth revert; they have not done so. The issue is that I first removed, and then tagged for cleanup, a statement from 2.5 years ago, about where somebody lived. I cannot really tell why the user objected to this so vehemently. They have claimed that the burden is on me to find a better source; that's not the case according to WP:BURDEN. They have claimed that I must leave the status quo alone; that's not true according to WP:STATUSQUO. So, I feel obliged to report their behaviour here. Nivari (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . Filer is a long term banned editor doing his usual. Blocked as such. Kuru   (talk)  01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)