Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive412

User:DongxingJiang reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: warned, protection upgraded to ECP)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "At this point, you should be more than capable of seeing the changes for yourself and then comparing. You are the main editor of this particular article, and hence you should have a good understanding of how the previous version looked like and how was it changed. And I didn't change everything. Just the lede and Overview section."
 * 2)  "Removing incorrect information inserted without consensus."
 * 3)  "May I ask as to why does the lede violate the MOS? I couldn't find anything which was of "undue weight" there, and now I merged some paragraphs to fit within the 4 paragraph limit."
 * 4)  "The newly changed lede is more than adequate at summarizing the main body of the article, and I've specifically changed the Overview section to consistently reflect said change and  reliable sources. As for why I've changed it in the way I did, it's because the assertion that social democracy is a "political ideology within the socialist movement" is mostly based on one source only, and numerous sources within this very article dispute such conclusion, not to mention there was no consensus."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "welcom, warn"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Social democracy. (Mechanized Unit)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly inserting a massive amount of controversial material into the lead without consensus, despite the open discussion on the talk page, thanks to User:Davide King for that. —— Serial # 10:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

. I've attached a uw-3rr warning, so now they are deemed aware of the notion of edit warring and 3RR. El_C 10:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks—although I assumed them to be aware of the notion since I warned them yesterday.  ——  Serial # 10:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Looking for red, but you went for understated blue. Oh well. Please let me know if they continue edit warring. El_C 10:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also upgraded the protection to ECP, but that is intended for a brief duration, so please remind me if I forget to downgrade back to semi. El_C 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All's well that end's well,, thanks for this. ——  Serial # 11:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anytime, SN. El_C 11:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reported user blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet; see Sockpuppet investigations/SmalforaGiant. has lowered the protection back to semi. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: editors are talking it out on the talk page; no action necessary)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is sourced content using the source of the other party to the discussion, and it's not disputed. Please don't remove reliably sourced content,"
 * 2)  "POV pushing again, no evidence in the body to support this term. Please gather a consensus before putting such a bold claim."
 * 3)  "Take to talk - we write based on more than just sourcing, otherwise we'd include plenty of other vague wp:peacock terms. Britannica is not even a great source - WP:BRITANNICA."
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 965983531 by Ɱ: Still provides no meaning for the term, doesn't appear to have any technical definition, nor is there evidence Columbus was such a skilled navigator to warrant the title. (TW)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Christopher Columbus
 * Request for page protection

Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I've stopped. I understand your point. I would also like to note that you and Strebe together have edit-warred your viewpoint (without or while discussing) with as many reverts as me. That should not be considered acceptable either. ɱ  (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well it's a good thing that 3RR doesn't combine multiple editors, then, isn't it! Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why most good judges go by the spirit of a rule, not the technical wording. Edit warring by two to skirt 3RR rules is no better than edit warring by one. ɱ  (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is why I reported you rather than let it slide, because you are WP:ABF and casting aspersions on the other involved editors. You just can't stand that more than one person opposes you in this, can you? Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about that, I care about a gross misrepresentation of the truth front-and-center for 20,000 readers per day. ɱ  (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you're not done, and/or if you don't self-revert, you're very likely to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am done, and someone already reverted the text in question to about what the other user added. Am I not allowed to complain that the other two were edit warring with me too? ɱ  (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you were not done, since your last edit reverted this one. In other words, I could have blocked you already. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about that - as I said, that section I wrote and restored was not part of the edit war, and only a small aside to the conversation happening. I would not accept you taking any action against me, given our past heated arguments like over the George Floyd protests. You are not a neutral body here. ɱ  (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ɱ, now I know where I remember you from--thanks for reminding me. We weren't actually arguing over the protests, but over some name, and I note that things didn't go your way, so I'm good. Anyway, if you don't understand what 3R involves, don't take any chances. It doesn't matter whether something was "part" of it or not: 3R applies to any revert, and your edit was a revert, since you undid another editor's edit. Simple. Anyway, you stopped, so it's all good, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, though I don't think it should be written like that. I have nothing else to add here, I guess I have never had to read 3RR that carefully enough to realize that, and should have. ɱ  (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ɱ, it is what it is, and it's an easy mistake to make, I suppose, cause when you're in the thick of it you tend to think it's just about that one thing. But believe me, I wouldn't tell you something if I didn't believe it to be true. Off to the talk page y'all go, and good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 3RR is for "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I added the section on the controversy after the edit warring had subsided, and you and the other user had no right to remove it; it's simply not part of the edit war. ɱ  (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So you fought battles on 2 fronts in your edit war against 3 people and made 4 reverts in total...? Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say, the section I added was not part of it! Some other user reverted it (mistaken that it was part of the edit war like Drmies is) and I just reverted it once because it's sourced content using the ref the other side supports and provided. That is not an edit war, and it's not like you can just tally up any of my reversions on this article or others with your mix just because. That's not how any of this works, sorry. ɱ  (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit warring had stopped, we were discussing the issue at hand, and thus I am free to boldly offer text elsewhere on the article that relates to the discussion. I never continued edit warring/changing the lede as was controversial. For you to wrap this into this noticeboard discussion is improper and I find it offensive. ɱ  (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Closed by User:Drmies as no action necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing war on Apitherapy article (Result: Malformed report)
I seem to be having trouble with a user on the Apitherapy page. The Apitherapy states:

"Apitherapy is a branch of alternative medicine that uses honey bee products, including honey, pollen, propolis, royal jelly and bee venom. Proponents of apitherapy make claims for its health benefits which are unsupported by evidence-based medicine."

The second sentence is not true, but it provides two citations. The citations are true for using bee venom for cancer treatments. However, the statement is not true in general because honey is used medicinally for its antimicrobial properties. To challenge the blanket assertion using citations in the context of cancer therapies I added a "citation needed".

The author is reverting the edits requesting citations for the claims.

At this point we need help to resolve the differences in editing.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think this board is the right place for your issue. You should follow the guidance at Dispute resolution. Good luck! Schazjmd   (talk)  14:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Edit_Warring, this is the place. A specific course of action (rather then pointing someone to a generic article) would be most helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs)


 * Result: Malformed report. See the instructions at the top of the page; "Click here to create a new report". Please include the diffs that demonstrate an edit war. Jeffrey Walton, your signature does not match your user name. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Michael306 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: Blocked)
−		 	Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Its just over the top, no effort is being made to address the concerns raised by other editors and the topic is in the public eye at the moment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This whole section was deleted from the noticeboard by the subject, can we get an indeff? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Michael306 has been blocked 48 hours for removing a complaint about their own edits from this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 et al reported by User:Hindustanilanguage (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Hi, There appears to many vested interests who are prevented edits to the article Namaste Trump and also lot of edit-war is witnessed on the article as well as personal attack which can seen from the talkpage, mostly from IPs.

Most recent undoes to the inputs I experienced by 2402:3A80:1562:FCEC:4F38:AE65:73AC:6CD0 - a totally new user who forcefully removed a lot of content which was discussed here @ Talk:Namaste_Trump. Also unwarranted personal attacks: "...I agree that Hindustanilanguage..."

Does Wikipedia allow IPs to unilaterally undo already discussed edits?

Established editors have to thoughtfully think twice before reverting undoing edits of IPs - unless they want to be tagged as editwarring or three-revert rule breachers. On the other hand, IPs are not bound by any rule and can undo anyone's edits. They are also working in teams - if one is blocked, a new avtar will appear automatically.

Going by the way edits are taking place, I suspect a vested interest mafia is constantly trying to adopt an overprotective approach towards the existing content by blocking the page from more info being added to it.

I request the admins to please examine undos of the above IP and restore previously adding while either warning or blocking this IP. I also request to protect the page from IP edits as this page was earlier subjected to disruptive edits by another IP 110.227.228.147. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected two days by User:MelanieN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Licks-rocks reported by User:NEDOCHAN (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

In spite of an ongoing discussion the 3rr rule has been broken as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Licks-rocks NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For any administrator coming across this mess, nedochan here decided to start an edit war on JK:rowling because he didn't like the consensus we reached on the talk page. Make of that what you will. I won't touch that page again until this gets cleared up.--Licks-rocks (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * additionally, it should probably be noted that I just counted, and there's three reverts from me, not four. so hey. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird. The version that Licks-rocks has reverted to is the consensus version, as admitted by Nedochan themselves on the talk page, and who also on three reverts. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like 4 reverts for Links-rocks.
 * (Undid revision 965874248 by Crossroads (talk) That's not what the BLP RfC was about.)
 * (Undid revision 966013451 by NEDOCHAN (talk) I counted.)
 * (Undid revision 966019715 by NEDOCHAN (talk) I went, I saw, I conquered. Jokes aside, the talking has been done. That you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean it never happened.)
 * (Undid revision 966020480 by NEDOCHAN (talk) Stop edit warring. No new argument has been made. This is currently the consensus version. That you don't like that is not a reason to revert my edits.)
 * As well as 4 reverts for NEDOCHAN.
 * (Undid revision 965954455 by Licks-rocks (talk)bastun totally correct in opening discussion. Discussion ongoing.)
 * (Undid revision 966005244 by Licks-rocks (talk)not as far as I'm concerned. That's the point of tp.)
 * (Undid revision 966015740 by Licks-rocks (talk)go to talk page. Don't edit the page. WP:ONUS)
 * (Undid revision 966020286 by Licks-rocks (talk)go to the talk page. Stable version restored)


 * Both of you should cut it out and take it to talk. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. There have been no further reverts by either party in the last 24 hours. . EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Vili.falenius reported by User:Hzh (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Also at user talk page - e.g.

Comments:

Although the latest bout of reverts started in May, this is a slow motion edit war that started months ago. The editor just kept adding or changing sales figures without proper sources, claiming that the numbers can be found in fan sites, or other website specifically mentioned as sites to avoid in guidelins, or are RIAA certifications. Despite his edits being reverted by four different editors -, and numerous attempt to explain why the figures are not acceptable, there is no sign that editor intends to stop doing it, and will keep doing it until they get their own way. Hzh (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * – Continued use of bad sources after many warnings. This user has never posted on an article talk page. Any admin may lift the block if they believe the editor has changed their mind and will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ADiaz27 reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/966356876
 * 2) Special:Diff/966360952
 * 3) Special:Diff/966363012
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/966361032

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

I invited the editor to raise their concerns on the article talk page but it looks like they're not going to take me up on that. I would take care of this myself, but am involved at this point. Note as well this edit,where I essentially accept ADiaz27's suggestion to include a mention of the RAE's position in the lead, but with a better source and more appropriate tone. The final two diffs by ADiaz27 were made despite this accommodation. Prior to this disruption, the page was on pending changes protection, which may be a good idea given the amount of battleground editing that the page attracts regardless of whatever sanctions may be appropriate for ADiaz27 in particular. signed,Rosguill talk 18:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLOCK and WP:PBLOCK, why was the user blocked from all pages when they had only disrupted one? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because partial blocks are optional.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the policy, Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site. Why was it required? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ritchie, partial blocks are optional. There are many admins who actually do not agree with them and do not use them. I do, but chose not to in this instance. A 48 hour block for a first time 3RR violation is well within admin discretion. If you believe it falls outside of blocking policy please go ahead and ask for a review at AN. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically, if I'd remembered that partial blocks existed I might have considered doing that myself as an obvious-enough sanction despite involvement. signed,Rosguill talk 20:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333, it seems you are trying to get recognition for language that you yourself added to WP:BLOCK on 19 June 2020. That is the first time that page included the 'if required' language. There is no such wording in WP:PBLOCK. The page most relevant to the edit warring noticeboard, WP:EW, has no mention of partial blocks. You did open a thread at WT:BLOCK and there has been a small discussion, though much less than a sitewide consensus. Though I have issued a couple of partial blocks, they appear to be an experiment still. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A good response (that I was looking for) would have been "Well, experience has said when this sort of troublemaker disrupts one article, blocking from just that leads to them disrupting another immediately afterwards, so experience has said you might as well block them everywhere". As Ed notes, I have asked for a review - incidentally, AN is for incidents, not discussion of policy changes which should be done at the relevant talk page (as I have done) or the Village Pump. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI is for incidences requiring immediate attention of admins. WP:AN is the Administrators Noticeboard, for "posting information and issues of interest to administrators", information and issues such as you starting a discussion elsewhere where you pretty much unilaterally changed the blocking policy that directly affects most active administrators. There is no requirement that I respond exactly to your satisfaction. As I already noted, the block is within admin discretion and you can request a review of it at WP:AN, which should also include discussion of your contention that partial blocks are now a requirement because you've deemed it so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User:KidAd reported by User:LoganBlade (Result: Filer blocked for 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "he is not listed as an alumni of the school so the category is not applicable; avoid edit warring and assume good faith"
 * 2)  "self-rv"
 * 3)  "not an alumni"
 * 4)  "inaccurate category"
 * 5)  "covered in prose; only attended Pretoria for 5 months"
 * 1)  "covered in prose; only attended Pretoria for 5 months"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Refuses to engage on the talk page and does not follow WP:BURDEN. Tries to alter and remove the consensus on Musk's education. Thanks, (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment as involved user. I'm trying my best to remain calm here. I will remind User:LoganBlade that it takes two to edit war. I will also note that User:LoganBlade left a notice on my talk page and immediately made this report before communicating with me. After reading his notice on my talk page, I self-reverted. After creating this report, he simply replied wp:burden on my talk page. Helpful. Throughout this dispute, User:LoganBlade had displayed incivility and refused to assume good faith. WP:BURDEN clearly states the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so all of this is based on the incorrect application of policy. Last, LoganBlade was blocked for incivility just last week. I would think they would take extra precautions following their block instead of (seemingly) itching for another. KidAd (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another comment this is not a revert and this is not a revert. By my count, I made this revert and this revert before self-reverting. That is two reverts. User:LoganBlade violated WP:3RR with one, two, three, four. KidAd (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Filer blocked for 7 days. Clear violation of 3RR. Per recent 3-day block for disruption, they need to learn to work collegially. Black Kite (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Badboogie reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Partial block )
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:

Comments:


 * Blocked from Phil Lynott for 1 month. Black Kite (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Owen a ferguson reported by User:Robertsky (Result: Blocked 36 hours, but not for edit warring)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am no longer marking this as a "minor edit" because some asshole keeps insisting that it's not a minor edit."
 * 2)  "This is the same edit I've had to make 3 times now because Wordpress isn't open-source and there's no proof that it is cited."
 * 3)  "Just like my last minor edit, this was not an error. Please don't revert this because you are too stupid to read the edit summary."
 * 4)  "This is no longer open source or free so I'm correcting a major error that was never fixed when the situation changed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on WordPress. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Introducing factual errors on WordPress. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Robertsky. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User behaviour is also lacking, leaving personal attack messages on my talk page. – robertsky (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

– robertsky is incompetent and should be removed from the platform permanently. Also, his bedside manner leaves much to be desired. He is a detriment to your brand and one of the reasons most of your users are cowed out of participation. He is a bad user and you should ban him for life, as well as all his IP ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen a ferguson (talk • contribs) 06:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To admin: I rest my case with the above comment. – robertsky (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ., please note that you were supposed to include a diff of edit warring / 3RR warning above, but have not — you give diffs for three other kinds of warnings, but not that. And when I check Owen a Ferguson's talkpage, they have indeed never been warned, or in any way informed, of our edit warring rules that I can see, and may well have been unaware of them. The reason the report template here has a special place for such a warning is that it's very important. The user will not be sanctioned for edit warring without it. I will however block them for 36 hours for egregious personal attacks both in edit summaries and elsewhere. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
 * thanks. apologies for the oversight. the 3rr warning should have come with the personal attack warning since both occurred at the same time. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 reported by User:Tayi Arajakate (Result: Page semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Time & Date are in IST
 * 1) 09:41, 5 July 2020
 * 2) 11:23, 5 July 2020
 * 3) 11:29, 5 July 2020 (Warned at 12:33, 5 July 2020)
 * 4) 13:42, 5 July 2020
 * 5) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (Revert of a self revert)
 * 6) 09:56, 7 July 2020
 * 7) 10:20, 7 July 2020
 * 8) 10:26, 7 July 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0

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

Comments:

The IP likely changed (from this one: ) and has an even longer edit warring history so a range block is probably necessary. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any 3RR violation. But it is understandable why Tayi Arajakte would file such meaningless report since he has a weak grasp of English lang and is seeking range block to secure his POV pushing. I made 2 reverts and SerChevalerie made 3 reverts. No prizes for guessing why he is not reporting SerChevalerie. Unlike this disruptive editor, I started discussion on a noticeboard. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the above diffs you have made at the very least least 7 reverts since 5 July on which day you made 4 reversions and went back on your edit warring against the established consensus on 7 July after a day's page protection ended. And now you've decided to resort to casting aspersions on me here, impressive. You also don't necessarily need to violate 3RR to edit war, not that you haven't violated it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, the "reverts" count from SerChevalerie is higher. There has been no consensus for the edits over which the edit war occured. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You made revertions against, , me and some IPs too I think. If one were to include the previous IP address then it includes and some others as well who I guess got fed up of the persistent disruption and left that article. So no, it is quite improbable that SerChevalerie would have made more reverts. Not to mention your persistent repetition of the same argument against all the mentioned above doesn't mean there is no consensus, it's just a classic example of "I didn't hear it" which is disruptive behavior especially combined with your edit warring.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Canvass others all you want by hoping they will support your POV pushing but I hope they can see what you are really trying to establish through this malicious report. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:User doesn't even ping anyone as far as I'm aware. (Ok, I was wrong about that I suppose) Continuing to throw accusations at others is also quite tendentious, in hindsight ANI might have been a better place for this. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It actually did ping me. But thank you for doing so -- I can attest to what Tayi has said here and this IP's refusal to keep to the talk page and actually talk things through, rather than edit warring. —  Czello  07:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I have also added this at . SerChevalerie (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an RFC on the talk page regarding the Gujarat opposition Congress and Maharashtra ruling Shiv Sena-led coalition holding Namaste Trump event responsible for the spread of Covid in the two Indian states. IP editors are quite averse to incorporating the info, although the allegations per se are notable and need to be part of the article because of this. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:El C per a request at WP:RFPP. It's possible that the same IP editor may also have been using to edit at Namaste Trump. There has been another discussion at WP:NORN. I have not noticed anyone agreeing with the IP editor that 'criticised' is the wrong term to use. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:93.178.44.39 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "YES I DID! >:("
 * 2)  "I ALREADY explained, dammit!"
 * 3)  "Will you stop vandalizing this page already?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Plus threats, trolling Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP has already been blocked by User:PhilKnight for personal attacks. If the behavior continues, a long block for vandalism would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Warned)
Pages: User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User is continuing to revert others' edits on the infobox captions for the article pages for seasons 13-15, and had previously been reverting/edit warring over the content at America's Got Talent (season 15) despite others' changes. When asked to discuss their changes on a talk page rather than continuing to their preferred version, they stated, "if you revert, then take it to TALK PAGE!!!" (last diff listed above, #12). This definitely seems to be a case of WP:OWN. The user in question has definitely been helpful regarding these articles (and others) before, but now is plainly edit warring against other users.

Should also note that some of the reverts listed are basically the same, just on separate articles (#3 and #9, for example). Magitroopa (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The user has also been warned against edit warring in August 2018, this past December, and was asked about their reverts on the AGT season 15 article, with no response from the user. This seems to be a recurring thing and cannot keep happening. Magitroopa (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The user has now removed said previous warnings from their talk page. Still viewable in version history. Just wanted to clarify that before I'm asked as to why some of the links above do not go to the sections I specified. Magitroopa (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for all the comments, this should be the last from me. Just seeing now that this user is not new to being listed on this noticeboard. Definitely is a recurring habit:


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


 * Thanks again. Magitroopa (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the comments he made in the thread at User talk:GUtt01 it sounds as though User:GUtt01 is agreeing to stop the war. I hope they will add a comment here to clarify their intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * has now definately agreed not to edit-war further, at least on this issue. Report closed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joserchm reported by User:Wiki-Ed (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: And a few more since yesterday:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (deleted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure if this is vandalism of a featured article - it involves unsourced insertion of POV commentary, unexplained deletions and random changes to content/links with no explanation in edit summaries or on the talk page - but I won't take the risk by making a fourth revert myself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

edit-waring]] is pretty much never help0ful.
 * you added unsourced content to an important article, British Empire, and when this change was reverted, you reverted back, and kept editing. When this was reverted again you reverted again, and later again. You did not engage with the other editors, and none of your recent edits to that article, including the reverts, have any edit summery beyond the automatic default. You did not open a discussion on Talk:British Empire. In future, please explain your edits with routine edit summaries, and if your edits are reverted, pleas follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion on the article talk page if you wish to defend or continue your edits. You were just short of the three-reveert line. Another revert would put you over the line, and a block would be very possible. Even short of 3RR, [[WP:WAR|
 * you were technically edit warring also, with two reverts, and you did not start a discussion on the talok page either, althoguh you did use more helpful summaries, and did warn Joserchm on hi9s or her user talk page.
 * I offer no opinion on the merits of the actual edits. I hope the two of you can resolve this on nthe article talk page withotu furhter problems. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:KrasniyOgon reported by User:PJvanMill (Result: Partial block)
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:

Keeps putting back the same stuff that they've written - all my attempts to communicate with them have been met with complete silence. I've been trying to direct them to the talk page.

The first four are technically a 3RR violation, but I only went to article talk and user talk after making my third revert, which (as I'll do from now on) I obviously should have done earlier instead of communicating only through edit summaries. PJvanMill ( talk ) 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Partial block Both editors have broken 3RR, but given KrasniyOgon's SPA status and complete lack of communication, I have partial blocked them for this article only until they start communicating. Black Kite (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both editors have broken 3RR Oh... Hm, I think I understand why, but it's not very intuitive to me that it would work that way. Thanks. Kind regards from PJvanMill  ( talk ) 14:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To follow up, KrasniyOgon and their blocked sockpuppet Rexy Stone have been indefinitely blocked at Sockpuppet investigations/KrasniyOgon for evading partial blocks using multiple accounts and edit warring. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Positivepower88888 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "new"
 * 2)  "better introduction"
 * 3)  "delete the rumor"
 * 4)  "delete the slander"
 * 5)  "better introduction"
 * 6)  "better introduction"
 * 7)  "delete the slander"
 * 8)  "delete the slander"
 * 9)  "better introduction"
 * 10)  "delete the rumor"
 * 11)  "delete the unreal rumor"
 * 12)  "a much better version of the basic information"
 * 1)  "delete the rumor"
 * 2)  "delete the unreal rumor"
 * 3)  "a much better version of the basic information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Johncena799 reported by User:GSS (Result: CU blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 966633120 by GSS (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 966527244 by GSS (talk this information must be the part of article to maintain neutral point of view. This article is about international organisation so must be under the eye of an international editor.)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 966281057 by LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk It is historical incident should be part of article 100% true)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sikhs for Justice. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Well, they said if you continue to working a propaganda tool I'm not gonna stop and gonna keep editing. enough is enough. on my talk page so I don't think they care about the policies. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@GSS is working as IndiAN PROPEGENDA tool and labelling sikh community as terrorist he must be stop as editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncena799 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Sikhs for justice an international organisation page must be under international editor not an Indian editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncena799 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You for the third time in a violation of WP:3RR and now attacking me personally. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@GSS Sikhs For Justice is an international organisation fighting legal fight against Indian aggression towards Sikhs. It is unfair if an Indian editor have editing right over this page. It is clearly conflict of interest and you have proved your biased point of in your editing. This page must be under an international editor to maintain neutral point of view towards peaceful and democratic campaign of Sikhs for Justice. Wikipedia is not for Indian propaganda and lebelling US lawyer as "terrorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncena799 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and now you are using a sock account . <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * and are ✅ socks of  and I've blocked and tagged.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Tamim Bin Hamad reported by User:Ahmetlii (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

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

Comments: This user is using a sock puppet and this user is sending irrelevant messages for users' talk page for communicate without Wikipedia. I have been redirected from here

Ahmetlii (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

-- puddleglum  2.0  20:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Helloooo203 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 966713455 by MrOllie (talk) ur hurting my feelings"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 966712719 by MrOllie (talk) OMG! I WORKED HARD! ITS NOT A PRODUCT LISTING, THERE ARE PLENTY OF LIST OF EPISODES ARTICLES. UR SO SELFISH MR OLLIE"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 966707513 by MrOllie (talk) you are being rude. Please be polite and stop removing my edits, I worked hard on them."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 965893933 by MrOllie (talk) There are many other wikipedia articles with a list of episodes for shows. Please stop being rude and keep this up."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* List of videos and kits */"


 * Comments:

Edit warring to keep an unsourced list of products in the article MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * for violating 3RR. –Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MichaelRubinator reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* DeSean Jackson section heading */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps adding this heading into the article despite a warning, request to discuss on talk page, and multiple reverts by other users. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * for violating 3RR. –Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Tawogfan2008 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Look it up!NOW!!!"
 * 2)  "It says that it airs on Disney channel on the Phineas and Ferb Wikipedia of Owca files."
 * 3)  "Please stop your making me cry.😭"
 * 1)  "Please stop your making me cry.😭"
 * 1)  "Please stop your making me cry.😭"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * by . –Darkwind (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:23.251.87.229 reported by User:Victor Schmidt mobil (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */She replied (on her verified account) to a message on my Instagram. I don't know how to add my Instagram as a source or a screenshot. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ueethma3awrkrk/2020-07-09%2008.29.47.jpg?dl=0"
 * 2)  "It's not an assumption when she's said she isn't part of the LGBTQIA community. And exactly how credible is your source? It's also not an assumption if the list is of out players and she isn't mentioned."
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */Corrected incorrect information. The title of the article is 40 out players. If her name is not on there, the assumption is that she is not an out player. Also, if you look at June 18, the IP address that initially took that information out is from the UK. I personally told her to take that out if it weren't true, which she did. She has stated she is not part of the LGBTQIA community."
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */Fixed incorrect information. Karen Bardsley has stated she is a part of the LGBTQIA community."


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring using the edit summary line as a discussion place. Note that the other side isn't realy better. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Glen 13:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:104.255.74.160 reported by User:Objective3000 (Result:48 hour block)
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: Editor will not engage on their UTP. Unlikely to engage on ATP.

Comments:

Editor has made four similar edits in 24 hours reverted by three editors. The article is under 1RR and Consensus required. The EW warning was not a strong one. But, the editor also received a discretionary sanctions warning. . This is the only article edited by them. O3000 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not just edit-warring, I just reverted for inserting text such as "Even in this article, nearly all of the cited sources labeling Judicial Watch claims as false are from these left-wing media outlets." in the article. That's vandalism. 48 hour block. Doug Weller  talk 13:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael306 reported by User:Doanri (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The word "controversial" first appeared in my edit. It is a mistake."
 * 2)  "Nothing is supposed to be controversial abou national security. Nor are Wikipedia policies."
 * 3)  "The law is NOT controversial in itself."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 966688780 by Kingsif (talk) The law is only controversial to some, not all."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Hong Kong national security law. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hong Kong national security law. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hong Kong national security law. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See user's talk page history for a lot of old warnings. User also deleted a previous notice on this board regarding him. User deleted the message I left on User:Horse Eye Jack's page about the deletion of the notice as well. Doanri (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : repeat offender. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Pepper2801 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

Comments:

This isn't 3RR because Pepper2801's reverts are slow. But it is justthe same unsourced personal opinion again and again, which I think amounts to edit warring. See - admittedly brief - attempts to talk on his talk page, ending with his My statements aren't opinions they are facts and if you delete and block me I and many others will publicly challenge the validity of Wikipedia William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's edit warring, but I've gone ahead and added to their talk page, even though it's looking like WP:NOTHERE.    I really wish you had dropped a good warning like that instead of this; it's not truly wrong&mdash;I would have chosen different wording&mdash;but it's a lot less convincing when it comes to 3rd parties looking to see if reasonable interventions and notifications of our policies were tried. -- slakr  \ talk / 10:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The warning should be enough one might hope. As for my warning... yeah, could have been better I agree William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned for edit warring by User:Slakr. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joserchm reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: 2 weeks (sitewide))
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:

The user appears to have only just come of a block for edit warring on the same page []. No attempt has been made by the user to discus this mater.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

. El_C 12:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Paradise Chronicle reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a POV user who is a resuming an edit-war on this page started by another user who was blocked for that. This user had opened a DRN case about one of the quotes, but did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle, and decided to remove two SOURCED quotes (2-3 lines each) from the Washington Post material and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They even removed the material during the DRN. The material in question describes the political situation of the town after it was captured by YPG militias (one of the belligerents in the Syrian civil war). Both works are VERY relevant; the Washington Post story is a field investigation done by an American journalist sitting across across the border from Tell Abyad. Fabrice Balanche (with the Washington Institute) is an expert in the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. In the beginning, the user was complaining about just one word (unilateral) in one quote, but after all their arguments were debunked now they are talking about some strange quote guidelines that do not really apply to our disputed quote, but they are using the guidelines a s a pretext to remove the material that goes against their POV. One last thing, this article is sanctioned by the 1RR under the Syrian civil war community sanctions, and this user was already warned by admin user:EdJohnston and they just reverted twice within 24 hours violating the 1RR, on top of gaming the system and the long-term edit war. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They were not actual reverts. The first was a well explained edit and the second was a revert of a revert, again well explained under the same section. The filer is a long term reverter at the Tell Abyad page and has managed to get Konli17 blocked just by reporting here, while in reality having been the first reverter at the article. Just check the edit history.

Both have reverted 8 times, all within the rules and only Konli17 was blocked, who at the time was also the more active at the talk page. Amr has reverted ca. 11 times so far and was not really discussing on topic at the talk page, if he actually did so. His main tool is to editor and then report for anything. I self revert, as apparently there is a doubt, and a re-remove it after 24 hours.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted now, which is actually against the WP:Quotations. The self revert is about a quote that wasn't even in dispute and wasn't a topic in the history of the dispute. But I wonder if a quote by a outlet that doesn't even have a wikipedia article is worth to be mentioned in such a length.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't play the victim now. I added sourced material from highly respected sources and you removed it several times, so you are the reverting person, not me. I discussed on the Talk page for ever the points why these quotes are relevant and needed for the article, but you refused. You rejected the suggestion by the DRN volunteer to your own request regarding the quotes in question and never accepted to compromise. You kept adding new vague pretexts for removing the content, initially complaining about the facts in the quotes, then when your argument failed (when I added more sources) you started talking about quote guidelines, etc. I have asked you here one last time to self-revert your edit that removed the material but you decided to ignore that. Even your very last self revert did not restore the content you removed two days ago, which is the subject of this complaint and DRN. The article history and Talk page are available for everyone to see what's going on. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for reminding me of your partner in the edit-warring campaign, Konli17, as there is a case still open against them that admins might want to look into. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this notification, there is actually even a better explanation on how the Konli17 block worked. See my edit. I also invite Admins to look into this and specially also our dispute her. I guess both parties don't think they are edit warring, and I have initiated 2 discussions and have taken part in 4 discussions at the Tell Abyad Talk Page, filed a request at the DNR, encouraged volunteers to engage in the dispute here and here interacted with admins here and here in search of dispute resolution, opened another discussion at the teahouse, and until now admins were not really showing that they are interested in the dispute. Which is also ok, since Wikipedia is project of volunteers, but if one wants to come and help us, you are so welcome. These discussion are a lot to read to get understand the dispute, so as a short cut, I recommend to look at the WP:Quotations where it is actually quite clear, that the quotes have not to be there.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Close: the edit was self-reverted. Please continue to engage on the article talk page. El_C 13:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

User:S.Staines reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked 2 weeks (sitewide))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed un-agreed references currently being discussed in talk."
 * 2)  "Referenced material not from a NPOV. Corrected. Please provide references in talk."
 * 3)  "Removed unreferenced accusation. Being discussed in talk."
 * 4)  "Removed far right as no reference provided."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Biased editing? */ Forgot to sign"


 * Comments:
 * On May 30 S.Staines received a 1 week block for disruptive editing on Gavin McInnes. Their first article edits after the block expired were again to that article, and are again disruptive: removing sourced information, denying the reliability of the source and additional sources added, all without substantive discussion on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * due to egregious nature of this edit warring; user is well aware of the edit warring policy, having been blocked for EW before, and chose to ignore it. –Darkwind (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Greenpeacemst reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Already blocked)
Page: User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "correcting alleged view based on flimsy evidence"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

see This is clearly the IP who had hit 3rr before editing with an account  Doug Weller  talk 18:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Involved Admin Comment: It's clearly the same user, and they are well past 3RR. As the "Legend of the Rainbow Warriors" is central to the identity of the Greenpeace group (founders involved in spreading the fakelore, named their Rainbow Warrior after the legend, use the story to inspire their activists, etc), I've given the user a COI notice, as well. They shouldn't be editing this article at all. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * –Darkwind (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:CiteLeadBoat reported by User:Sharkslayer87 (Result: Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967125477 by Sharkslayer87 (talk) explained the sources and restored it ok"
 * 2)  "there is source existed and after proper checking sources and i have restored the removal can u explained the content that doesn't have the sources"
 * 3)  "history has been rm and added back and its important and sources existed"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Amaravati. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Reply"


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


 * Comments:

The new user is reinstating removed content and is unwilling to listen. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * both of you are at two reverts each and the edit warring seems to have stopped for now. It does look like asked you to explain (in their edit summary) what content they had added which wasn't cited. To an uninvolved editor, it looks like neither of you is listening to the other. –Darkwind (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Springee reported by User:JimKaatFan (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Springee removing well-sourced info that has so far been added by myself and at least 1 other editor. He didn't engage in discussion until after his 4 reverts. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've self reverted. Note that JimKaatFan is also at 3rr and also has ignored BRD.  The material they are edit warring into the lead had been rejected thus they need to get consensus for the addition. Springee (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You only self-reverted after I opened this report. "The material they are edit warring into the lead had been rejected" - this is rich framing indeed. A different editor added it first, then I added it, AFTER you edit-warred it out. One might ask "had been rejected" by whom, exactly? You and you alone. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not consensus to add this material to the lead. Rather that adding the same rejected material back to the lead the burden was on you to get consensus for that material.  You are correct I inadvertently crossed the 3RR line and I have corrected that.  That doesn't free you from WP:CONSENSUS.  Springee (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Two Three other editors have already weighed in at Talk:Tucker Carlson that this material should be included. None have agreed with you wishing to whitewash this material off his article. I'd call that consensus. Additionally, if it's appropriate for Tucker Carlson (it is), then it's easily appropriate for Tucker Carlson Tonight, which is the place you crossed 3RR with your edit-warring. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * the edit war between these two users has already stopped.


 * Self-reverting is self-reverting, regardless of whether it was done before or after a report was filed; it's still a show of good faith that one knows that one's edits were wrong. As to the discussion between the two of you regarding the content in question, please take it to the talk page. –Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Skllagyook reported by User:سیمون دانکرک (Result: Both blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * I made some responses at the board (Administrators/Incidents) where this complaint was originally filed (the second I tried to post but the discussion, unknown to me, had been closed/moved here). I am adding my replies here (somewhat modified):


 * At first I removed one clearly non-relevant ref and a word (the word "greatly") from the new addition (as can be seen in the first diff). After looking over it, there seemed to be several problematic issues and thus I removed the addition in full, explaining my reasons in the edit notes. User:سیمون دانکرک reinstated their addition with little response to me (only stating in the edit notes that it was "relevant"), and I reverted again twice more, each time attempting to explain my reasoning and asking User:سیمون دانکرک to discuss on the Talk page instead of edit warring with little to no engagement. User:سیمون دانکرک never engaged with my objections to their addition (either in Talk page or edit notes) but instead repeatedly largely ignored them and then reported me.


 * If I understand correctly, I have, by reverting their edit three times, not violated the 3RR rule (which, as I understand it, prohibits reverting an edit more than three times), but if I am incorrect and I have violated it, I will of course self-revert until this matter is resolved.


 * (As may be seen in the diffs) I explained repeatedly in the notes why the addition added by the filing user (User:سیمون دانکرک) to the page (Proto-Indo-European homeland) was somewhat problematic. They seem to have continued to ignore/not engage with the explanations I made (in notes) nor discuss in Talk, but continue to reinstated your addition. I have attempted to contact three other editors who have edited on this topic including one administrator (User:Puduḫepa, User:Joshua Jonathan, and User:Doug Weller) - here at 1. Hopefully thereby they/we can resolve the issue.


 * In response to the filing user's reply that the issue should have been resolved after they removed one ref, and to their accusation that I was canvassing (by pinging the three users mentioned above) I replied (or had intended to reply) with the following:


 * "The issue was not only the presence of a blog ref (that was only one issue). There were several other issues: including the fact that the information was already included in the article in the relevant places (both in that section you modified and other ones) and in both it already referenced the recent research from Reich, Kristiansen, Wang Kroonen and others. And also the fact that several of your refs did not even support or mention the Armenian/Southern hypothesis of proto-Indo-European origin at all (as your addition claimed). I explained that your addition was unecessary and redundant (and why) and the refs you added were either redundant (already, as mentioned, represented in relevant places) or (in some cases) not supportive of/relevant to the claim you were representing them as supporting. I explained this three times in the notes and you ignored and continue to ignore it. I do not believe my pinging the three users was qualifies as canvassing: The first two are some of the the main users who have been edited on the topic in within the last few months (who seem to be among the most well versed on the topic - it is an area where it's good for those invloved to have specific knowledge of the topic) and one is an administrator (I am not aware of him having any particular leanings regarding the subject)."


 * The issue is currently being discussed in the Talk page of Proto-Indo-European homeland Skllagyook (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * سیمون دانکرک is edit-warring; they're pushing an "Iranian model" which does not exist as such in the literature; they ignore explanations; and they don't take their objections to the talkpage. And the four diffs above refer to three reverts, actually; four and three were to subsequent rverts. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been too busy to respond - and I'm not sure I know enough about the subject. Sorry. Doug Weller  talk 18:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * . This was clearly an edit war, if a brief one, but 3RR was not violated and the disruption has stopped. Discussion about whether or not the content edits were appropriate, or about other behavioral concerns, belong on other discussion boards and not here. –Darkwind (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . After coming across a request about this page at RFPP, I see that the disruption has begun again, and both editors have violated 3RR at this point. –Darkwind (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:86.143.34.149 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967291036 by PaskaSemmen113 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 967290228 by Jonas kam (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 967224726 by Jonas kam (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 967220385 by Jonas kam (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 967207567 by TB Chigz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967220385 by Jonas kam (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 967207567 by TB Chigz (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Template:2019–20 Premier League table. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:79.43.108.133 reported by User: 212.90.63.155 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User don't want to reach the consensus before changing article and started edit war. Also removing warning from his talk page. 212.90.63.155 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

79.43.108.133 has provided an excellent source for his edit, in addition to the one that already existed, whereas 212.90.63.155 has provided no sources at all. The OP has not notified 79.43 of this report. Aside from that, the OP is currently on 4RR himself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the reliable source that says Grosjean was not given the permission for racing after qualifying.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * for violating 3RR. Doesn't matter whether or not the edit was properly sourced, with consensus or without, reverting a fourth time is a violation of the rules. –Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW,, your source actually shows that Grosjean WAS given permission to start.Tvx1 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:186.81.100.53 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Warned IP user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * IP editor for poorly sourced content; edit warring warning was already issued, and 3RR was not violated (you can't count their initial edit as a revert, otherwise you'd have to say everybody is reverting whenever one makes an edit). Please feel free to report them again if the disruptive editing continues. –Darkwind (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that because the first edit was a deletion of long-standing material from the article, it could count as a revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the context; I tend to go by the definition expressed in the Reverting essay. Wholesale content deletion (without replacement) or exact "undo"s are more clearly a revert and not attempts at collaborative editing, even at a first edit. In this case, the user did delete some content but was also attempting to add their (fringe) content, so it's not really a revert in my view. Not an acceptable edit either, but not a revert for counting 3RR. –Darkwind (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that IP just re-added the disputed content: []. Generalrelative (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Evrik reported by User:Flyer22 Frozen (Result: Not blocked)
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: here by me and here by admin Ohnoitsjamie Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Evrik has been reverted by multiple editors, including Crossroads, Ohnoitsjamie and myself, on their image additions to the article in question. Despite our objections to the images and telling the editor to stop edit warring, the editor keeps trying to add the images, engaging in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. Evrik is also WP:Gaming the system by coming back every time several days have passed to re-add the images. By this, I mean that it appears that Evrik is trying to game WP:3RR. But WP:3RR aside, it is edit warring. It is a slow edit war. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support a block; I'll recuse myself erring on the side of WP:INVOLVED, as I did revert one of the (many) attempts to re-add the images. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is definitely WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING. I note that his last block log entry was for the exact same thing, "edit warring over images". Crossroads -talk- 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, some of the edits cited above go back a month, and my attempts to work through this have to simply reverting edits. This is so not edit warring. In fact, I have tried discussing this on the talk page, only to be reverted and insulted. I posted a comment eight days ago  that went on responded to. I went ahead and made the edit. Three editors in a disagreement, where two hold one opinion and one holds another is not an edit war. in fact, I mentioned that we should take this to dispute resolution, but that was ignored.--evrik (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No administrative actions at this time due to the extremely slow nature of this edit war. However, I will note the following:
 * The fact that these reverts took place over the course of more than a month does not make it any less an edit war. A slow edit war is still an edit war. It certainly looks like you are willfully ignoring consensus that the images you want to add are not appropriate. Consensus is not only developed by, and reflected in, commentary on a talk page, it is also developed by and reflected in the actions of your fellow editors through the edits that they make. You have now been reverted by three different editors in regards to these images; it should be clear to you at this point that the consensus is the images are not constructive. Nobody objected on the talk page the last time you asked if you could add an image, but that doesn't change the existing consensus that the images are not appropriate, and re-adding them without even a whisper of agreement is willful edit warring.
 * Personally, I wouldn't have chosen this noticeboard as a venue given the slow nature of this edit war. Administrative remedies here are limited, either full page protection or a long block would be required, neither of which is appropriate to the level of disruption that is occurring. Another form of dispute resolution might have been more appropriate, although I'm not sure how effective it would be. –Darkwind (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkwind, I brought the issue here due to experience. Slow edit warring matters have been dealt with at this noticeboard times before, and that includes admins issuing one or more warnings or blocks (not necessarily long-term blocks). Yes, this slow edit war is not contained within one month, but still. In this case, we have one editor being disruptive by repeatedly violating WP:Consensus (a policy) and gaming the system. As made clear by Ohnoitsjamie (a no-nonsense admin), Ohnoitsjamie would have blocked if he were not involved. Blocking Evrik would have been appropriate. And if not a block, at least a stern warning. Because make no mistake about it...not giving him a stern, or at least an explicit, warning to stop has emboldened him. He just does not get it. I do not think that taking this matter to the WP:ANI drama board would have been best. But if Evir continues to engage in his "must insert these baseball images into this article where they absolutely are not needed" behavior, yes, I will report him there.


 * No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Flyer. I suppose we all approach things differently, but I can see why you'd think my admonishment to Evrik might not have been clear or direct enough, hence the following.
 * In case it wasn't clear from my paragraph directed to you above, willful edit warring is a deliberate violation of Wikipedia editing norms, and if you do not stop this kind of behavior, you will end up blocked from editing, either this article or the whole site. Consider this a final warning. –Darkwind (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Darkwind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkwind, I don't think this should have been brought here, but should have instead gone to Dispute resolution. Also, Frozen Flyer has been relatively aggressive and rude about the whole thing, as evidenced by this bon mot, "Go away already. You will end up blocked. Your images will not remain. Except it now. If I start an RfC on it, you don't have a chance. Move the hell on." An RfC would have been welcome. So, I don't think a threat to permanently ban anyone is in order. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkwind, I don't think this should have been brought here, but should have instead gone to Dispute resolution. Also, Frozen Flyer has been relatively aggressive and rude about the whole thing, as evidenced by this bon mot, "Go away already. You will end up blocked. Your images will not remain. Except it now. If I start an RfC on it, you don't have a chance. Move the hell on." An RfC would have been welcome. So, I don't think a threat to permanently ban anyone is in order. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am having a problem with this same user on Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London. They are insisting on including unnecessary and irrelevant information just to increase the character count. I have tried discussing this with them on the talk page, as has another user, but they won't budge. Swatchdog (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a little bit "out of order" to tag on a different article after the report is more or less closed. If you believe there is an actual edit war at the article in question, file a separate report here at ANEW. If you think it's a problem but not "over the line" yet, I suggest trying to follow the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, including taking advantage of dispute resolution processes as necessary. –Darkwind (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll deal with it. Swatchdog (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Swatchdog previously posted about the differences here, Teahouse and was advised about what to do. Also, I posted a response there as well. --evrik (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joelaroche reported by User:Balolay (Result: EC protection)
Kindly have a look at Diriliş: Ertuğrul, the user is doing edit warring and selective removal of sourced info. Balolay (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Result: Page EC protected two weeks by User:MelanieN after a complaint at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I was removing content that was irrelevant and unsourced (content was sourced but not mentioned anywhere in cited sources). I gave clear explanations for my edits. User:Balolay was repeatedly adding back the content without giving any valid reason to do so. The content being added back was not based on facts, was in violation of the NPOV rule and had a prejudiced view. Instead of taking up the issue on the talk page first, User:Balolay immediately reported me and continued undo edits and add back the same content. This can all be seen in the article's edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelaroche (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current protection prevents both of you from editing the article - and also prevents both of you from getting blocked for WP:Edit warring. I have posted a note on the article's talk page, calling for both of you to discuss your differences there. I suggest you start the discussion. Discuss the content, not the other editor, and support your comments with sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jadebenn reported by User:Moamem

 * Reason for report: 3RR Violation
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts :
 * 1. [23:52, 13 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648
 * 2. [00:45, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967564483&oldid=967562430
 * 3. [02:10, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967574229&oldid=967573716


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning :
 * 4. [02:43, 14 July 2020] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967577721&oldid=967576423

While I was in the process of reporting Jadebenn for Editing my comments on the SLS talk page, it came to my attention that the same user had just simultaneously committed a 3RR Violation reverting changes by another user (not me) 4 times in less than 2 hours. This is a clear 3RR Violation. Due to the multiple and simultaneous violations I ask you that the editor Jadebenn be banned from the platform or at least banned from editing the and its Talk page. Thank you - Moamem (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Requested remedy: Ban/Topic ban on article
 * Comments:
 * Edits reverted were vandalism by IPs. Auto-confirmed page protection was applied shortly after. This report seems to be in retaliation to an ongoing ANI case, which is over an incident that may have been the cause of said IPs vandalizing the figure. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 04:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your frivolous complaint has nothing to do with this issue. You admitted yourself to the rule braking saying and I quote "I probably shouldn't have removed that material.". As for the 3RR violation it's evident to anyone that can count to 4 and you admitted to it on your own talk page when another user brought it up saying and I quote : "Would rather not get slapped down for incivility or an (unintentional) 3RR vio. Hopefully I didn't just shoot myself in the foot." see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648 - Moamem (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are taking statements out of context. As for the alleged 3RR violation... you do realize there are only three reverts here, right? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 05:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are exactly 4! I mean lying so blatantly? I gave the reverts for G's sake! - Moamem (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. You put one in the wrong category. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 05:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Iss246 reported by User:Karenwilson12345 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967049979

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967097704
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967099248
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967102980
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967103234
 * 5) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967103438
 * 6) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967207365

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

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

Comments:

I notified Iss246 that sockpuppet and edit war investigations were requested; Iss246 has repeatedly circled back to revisions that I have made over the past few days; I think user:Oceansandsand is also user:Iss246; user:Iss246 has a history of edit warring that resulted in being blocked for one week in June 2020. Karenwilson12345 (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not edit warring; the user made multiple consecutive edits, which is not wrong. If you feel this user is harassing you or following you around, please file a report at WP:ANI. –Darkwind (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I edited the revisions made by user:Karenwilson12345. Mo matter how well intentioned her revisions, a number of them were not satisfactory. I edited the psychological testing entry in such a way as to improve the entry. I think her editing has improved but her first pass through the psychological testing entry needed improvement. Iss246 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:Buidhe (Result: 24 hours)
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: No talk page discussion was necessary over the disputed content in most of these reverts because ThecentreCZ eventually added a reliable source for the content that had previously been sourced to failed verification/unreliable sources (that the party is considered center-left). However I have just opened a talk page discussion about the party's alleged flag.

Comments: This isn't really a content dispute but rather an issue with the user repeatedly restoring content that lacks a reliable source or which fails verification in the cited source, as pointed out by two editors (Concus Cretus and myself). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd call it a content dispute at heart but it is exacerbated by the behavior of User:ThecentreCZ, who is quick on the revert and slow on the edit summary--they managed only one, and a quick look at the edits show the kind of valid complaint that the user should have taken up on the talk page. So, I was going to let this be, with a warning for ThecentreCZ to stop edit-warring and start talking--but then I saw this, and so yes, I am going to drop a 24-hr disruption block on them, for edit warring, a battleground mentality, unsourced edits (that flag), and a personal attack. Maybe that will show them that we are serious about "collaborative". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:37.122.183.234 reported by User:Jonas kam (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967344768 by Jonas kam (talk) It's vandalism. Not official medals count!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 966995669 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User is likely a sock Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * –Darkwind (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Springee (Result: Blocked 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit[], revert []
 * 2) Edit[], revert []
 * 3) Edit [], revert[]
 * 4) Edit[], revert[]
 * 5) Edit[], revert []
 * 6) Edit[], revert[]
 * 7) Edit[], revert[]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor filed a 3RR report against me yesterday (see the first 3 reverts above). In that report I noted that they were currently at 3RR. []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion [] and warning that they had exceeded revert limit []. This warning was prior to their 7th revert. Note edits 2-6 are all within a 24hr period. 1 and 7 are just on either side of the 24hr window.

Comments:


 * for violating 3RR (twice, if you count that there are two different overlapping 24 hour periods that have more than three reverts, edits 2-6 and 4-7). –Darkwind (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Darkwind, several of the edits that User:JimKaatFan reverted (edits #4, #5, #6) were by the sockpuppet User:MetaTracker. Does that alter your determination? Should the block be changed to a "warning" given that the user seemed both to misunderstand how 3RR worked, is relatively inexperienced in editing high-profile controversial topics (where 3RR kicks in a lot), and was in large part edit-warring with someone who was gaming the system? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not:
 * While it is not explicitly said on the policy page, my interpretation of 3RRNO #3 is that it only applies where reverts were done because the user who made the edit being undone was a banned/block user evading their ban. Additionally, one should state that as the reason for the revert in the edit summary or in a note on a talk page after the edit, in order to claim the exemption.  Since JimKaatFan 1) had no way of knowing MetaTracker was a blocked or banned user, as it was revealed in a checkuser block after the reverts, and 2) they specifically gave other reasons for their reverts, this exemption doesn't apply.
 * I don't buy the "unaware" or "inexperienced" explanation at all. JimKaatFan filed an ANEW report against Springee first, before 3RR had been violated, which I reviewed and closed with an admonishment to go to the talk page. If one is going to use a policy to complain about the behavior of another editor, one loses any credibility for using ignorance as an excuse when one later violates that policy themselves. (Also, for the record, JimKaatFan has not claimed any such excuse themselves.)
 * I am absolutely not going to get into a discussion of whether a particular editor is "gaming" anything by filing noticeboard reports.
 * –Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * –Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * –Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Gaming was in reference to the sockpuppet gaming the system. 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misunderstanding you. Comment struck. –Darkwind (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Spudlace reported by User:Melroross (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

(Spudlace) has been engaged in unjustified WP:DIFF, WP:Vandalism, violated WP:3RV and deleted even several images repeatedly against this article. Repeated warnings on WP:talk have been ignored over the past few days:

Portuguese_cuisine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spudlace

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967169490&oldid=967086611

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967149938&oldid=967149124

Also because they display a similar MO (aggressive conduct, aggressive language, fanaticism, supposedly new profile with apparent knowledge of Wikipedia editing tools which doesn’t add up with new users) to banned serial vandal User:JamesOredan(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JamesOredan). Based on experience, the alarm bells are ringing and I strongly suspect this is yet another sockpuppet profile created with single-purpose intent. Please check user’s Spudlace activity.

Many thanks, Melroross (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

2)
 * This user Spudlace continues to vandalise the same page, with no valid explanation to their persistent reverts of referenced contents:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967204596&oldid=967190779
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&action=history
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=967204808


 * Please assist with this very disruptive, counterproductive and time-consuming reversal mission by Spudlace.


 * Thank you Melroross (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

3)
 * This user User:Spudlace continues with disruptive and malicious editing:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spudlace


 * User:Spudlace Added ‘multiple issues template’ to this article for alleged unreliable sources, bare referencing and WP:WT notices, when very little is left to question. They do not contribute with quality, duly referenced and academic contents, but rather either revert other editors’ good-faith contributions or add peculiar, inaccurate and speculative contents which make little or no sense.

Third request, please assist with this. Melroross (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Spudlace is also involved in pretty aggressive disputed edits at Salsa (sauce). I assume good faith, but a tune-up of approach is certainly in order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, thank you for this and your comments at Salsa. We were eventually able to reach a consensus there, but I take seriously advice on how I can improve my editing approach. I reverted Melroross' addition of bare URLS as disruptive after I saw on his talk page that many other editors had problems with this user. I now believe this was a mistake (even if it was true) because it made him very angry and he has pinged me at least 6 times and leaving 4 messages on my talk page accusing me of sundry things. Because it doesn't serve the best interests of Wikipedia, I am extremely sorry for inflaming this. I'm worried that further replies from me will have the same effect and I also have family obligations related to the pandemic crisis where I am, so I may not be responsive. I can be reached by email.Spudlace (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

——————————————————————————————
 * For clarity, this is what was ‘pinged’ (?) to the above-user, prior to reporting:


 * User:Spudlace


 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 * Jump to navigationJump to search


 * Portuguese cuisine: User:Spudlace your profile has been engaging on disruptive reverts on my contents starting with Spanish cuisine and as some sort of “retaliation” against the Portuguese cuisine. Although the referencing style is clearly not an area of expertise, it is used with accuracy and fairness. I am warning you for the second time in less than 24 hours for suspected vandalism, 3RRR and fanaticism. You will be reported to Administrators if you don’t stop with your odd reverts.Melroross (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

When I looked over your edits I saw citations to blogs, commercial websites selling products, unreliable sources that were flagged as self-published sources and sourced content that was removed with false edit summaries. If an administrator tells me that I am editing disruptively I will stop, but I don't believe that you are a good faith editor. Spudlace (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User (talk) I have a strong suspicion that you are using this account as sockpuppet, based on your disruptive reverts on an article and subject-matter you don’t know enough. Finally, what gives you the right to remove referenced, relevant and accurate content and images on Wikipedia; about a country you are clearly not knowledgeable about? This kind of conduct is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Have a good day Melroross (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Best wishes Melroross (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * strictly from an edit warring perspective.


 * While you weren't edit warring, your behavior was not as civil as it could (should?) have been. It started when you referred to Melroross as a disruptive editor while performing a very-large-scale revert. I can guarantee that if you start with calling someone names and undoing over a month of their work on an article, your relationship with that editor is likely to sour very quickly. It continued when you accused them of vandalism in a perfectly ordinary-looking content revision.  In your edit summaries, I encourage you to try avoiding commentary about other users themselves, and comment on the reason behind your edit or what you see is wrong with their edit, not their behavior or personality.  You can't take back anything you say in an edit summary.


 * Your response to their revert on this article didn't help. I recognize that it might have been upsetting to see your edits reverted so abruptly, but accusing someone of sockpuppetry without concrete evidence is often considered uncivil. If you feel that someone is indeed socking, report it to WP:SPI; accusing someone of socking to their face has never, ever resulted in anything positive: either 1) they are indeed socking, so of course they know it already and don't need you to tell them (and it's hardly going to scare them into stopping) or 2) they aren't a sock, and you've just pissed them off. It's no wonder that you two kept sniping at each other through reverts and edit summaries after that. Again, you can't take back something you say in an edit summary, so try to keep commentary about your fellow editors out of it.


 * Also, this is quite minor, but I encourage you to try to consolidate some of your edits. If you didn't save so often, and use preview instead to check your progress, the page history wouldn't be so hard to read. When you make 10-20 consecutive edits, out of a 50-entry list, it's hard to see the patterns of who else is editing, and this makes investigating these complaints that much harder.


 * To both of you, please take a few days away from this article and each other, before you come back and genuinely try to improve it. Any further disruption may result in page protection or a block against one or both of you, depending on the behavior. –Darkwind (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mersenne56 reported by User:Adrian J. Hunter (Result: one week, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (in the edit summary; user was reading the edit summaries)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, user's response:

Comments:

User is insisting on parity between Vox and Quilette, in spite of consensus recorded at WP:RSP, and edit-warring to keep either both sources (first diff) or neither source (next three diffs) in the article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. El_C 10:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:Guitarist28 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by 77.81.136.85 (talk): Uncited (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by 77.81.136.78 (talk) to last revision by Davemck (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by 77.81.136.80 (talk): No citations (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Reverting changing IP which is obviously the same user as per here. These IPs may or may not be their IPs. Still, it appears they have violated the 3RR. Guitarist28 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Response
Obvious vandalism, by any number of different editors, can be reverted. This is something Guitarist28 should know since he already feels comfortable using tools like RedWarn, and doing a Good Article Review within his first week. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

. 3RR was not violated (only 3 reverts are listed), but reverts of obvious disruption are exempt per WP:3RRNO. El_C 11:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:86.146.209.237 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an editor of over five years standing, it is hard to believe that he is not aware of edit warring or the three revert rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page: ,

Note: discussion is at Talk:Philishave where a very similar edit war is in effect. The article Pontiac is openly discussed at that discussion.

Comments:

The Wikipedia Manual of Style unambiguously states at MOS:TENSE that when discussing products that are no longer in manufacture but still 'meaningfully exist', then the tense used to describe the brand is present tense. The first example provided unambiguously covers the point, "The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s". That unambiguously requires that the Pontiac article must also say "Pontiac is a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors (though I had modified it to read "Pontiac is a car brand that is owned by General Motors though no longer used for any current models" to remove any doubt as to what is current.

Jerodlycett has now four times reverted it back to "Pontiac was a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors in opposition to MOS:TENSE. For the avoidance of doubt Pontiac branded cars still meaningfully exist as Google turns up no end of such cars being offered for sale.

The discussion has been taking place on the Philishave article because Jerodlycett is insisting that "Philishave is the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" should be changed to "Philishave was the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" claiming that the brand no longer exists. Philishave razors clearly do meaningfully exist as Google turns up many suppliers of spare parts.

He falsely attempted to claim that another user agreed with him even though that user had made no further changes to the article or any further discussion, once the position of MOS:TENSE was pointed out (though has been active elsewhere since). He has even attempted to invoke a chilling effect by accusing me of unconstructive editing despite that I am following the manual of style.

Note: I have reverted Pontiac a few times myself but reversion of disruption and/or vandalism does not seem to count for 3RR. I have not reverted the current incorrect version. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Response
First, WP:3RR clearly states what the rule is, which the IP seems to have missed, that they must be within in 24 hours. Secondly, the IP editor has been disruptive, some evidence of this:


 * Talk:Philishave shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.
 * Talk:Philishave shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.
 * Talk:Philishave shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.
 * Talk:Philishave shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.
 * Talk:Philishave shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.

Interactions with other users have included removal of an image and formatting on others with a summary accusing others of doing this exact behavior, and a reading of guidelines with should and common practice as musts leading, with this lack of understanding of 3RR, to my conclusion that either they lack WP:COMPETENCE or are just WP:NOTHERE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP did not miss that edit warring does not have to be within 24 hours. That is only a bright line. Four reverts even if outside 24 hours is still edit warring. Dragging up random edits from other places is a poor attempt at trying to deflect attention from your own failure to abide by the manual of style which is what is being discussed here.


 * Jerodlycett has made blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts. He states above that I "shows a complete ignoring (sic) of what other users have stated". This is an attempt to claim that he has the support of multiple other users. That is a blatant lie. No other user has supported Jerodlycett in his arguments. One user did claim it should be past tense before Jerodlycett joined the discussion, but has made no further comment or argument once the wording of MOS:TENSE was pointed out despite being otherwise active.


 * Oh yes! and a repeated claim (three of the diffs above where he is communicating via edit summaries) that as I am following the MOS, I have to take it to the talk page to (presumably) get (his?) approval where as Jerodlycett has made no attempt to do so over his going against the MOS. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you also stop misgendering me, proper pronouns are right there on my user page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * as follows:


 * To 86.146.209.237: Starting with your behavior on this page, you are deliberately misgendering Jerodlycett, as is clear from your attempt at subtle (but actually quite blatant) emphasis on pronouns in your last paragraph. That is rude at best, and it really colors the rest of your behavior in context. If one doesn't know the pronouns one should use to refer to a fellow editor, one can use standard generic gender-neutral language such as they/them, refer to the editor by username only, or, for heaven's sake, look at their userpage where zie makes it pretty clear what pronouns to use. Failing all that, in a worst case, you could have even picked a set of pronouns like he or she and stuck with it (personally, I try to avoid using "he" as a default, but I slip up sometimes), but don't express your uncertainty with either questioning punctuation or italics/bold, much less both, as it really looks like you're just trying to ridicule. At least a default assumption isn't deliberately insulting.


 * As to your behavior in the article, you changed wording that had been stable since September 7, 2018, or almost two years, so you really shouldn't be surprised if you got reverted. It would have been better for collaboration if you'd gone to the talk page after your first, or even your second revert.  Instead, you made the change four times before you apparently gave up and still didn't explain yourself where editors of Pontiac would know where to see it.  Looking at the timing, it isn't unreasonable to think you deliberately came to the Pontiac article and changed the wording just because it had been used as an example in a discussion elsewhere that you were participating in. (Again, not conclusive behavior but it adds to the impression that you just want to win the argument.) Regardless of your motive, this is edit warring, even if it isn't 3RR.


 * Also, violating the MOS isn't generally considered intrinsically blockable behavior. What is blockable behavior is editing in a disruptive way in order to blindly enforce the MOS, or to disregard it, such as edit warring in one direction or the other. The MOS documents broadly-accepted consensus that helps editors maintain a consistent style of writing across the project, but local consensus can and does override it; furthermore, the meaning of "meaningfully exists" (emphasis mine) is certainly debatable. You could have waited for the discussion to get additional input from other editors, or even opened it as an RfC, instead of repeating the edits. It's true, "no other user" has supported zir position, but "no other user" has supported your position either. Just because you think the MOS backs you doesn't automatically make you correct, especially where the meaning of the MOS language is open to interpretation.


 * Both of you have a responsibility to avoid disruptive behavior and discuss the situation. Following your interpretation of MOS doesn't automatically make your editing acceptable; you can disruptively enforce just about any rule.


 * As much as the above is true, it is also true that you were edit warring back. No, you didn't violate 3RR, but a slow edit war is still an edit war.  After the second revert, I would have suggested explicitly debating the meaning or applicability of the terms used in the MOS, or seeking dispute resolution, etc. as per my suggestions above to the anonymous editor.  Also, if communication in edit summaries is not effective, use a talk page instead. "They didn't listen to what I said in my edit summaries" hasn't typically been considered much of an excuse for disruptive editing.


 * To both of you: I do thank you both for dropping the disruptive edit warring; before either of you change tense in any applicable article, I suggest completing your discussion at Talk:Philishave and reaching an agreement, or using dispute resolution. –Darkwind (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: there was no deliberate intent to mis gender Jerod in my posts. I had not looked at, nor did I have any reason to look at, Jerod's user page. Per your own suggestion in your first paragraph, I very deliberately 'picked' pronouns through an educated analysis of Jerod's name. 'Jerod', an alternate spelling of 'Gerald', is generally considered a male name in English and therefore a fairly safe bet. I have not knowingly used any other gender (and certainly not above).


 * It would never have even considered the use of 'zi' or 'zie' as I have never encountered either prior to this time. Not surprising as neither is a valid English word and they do not appear in any recognised English dictionary of any English variant. 86.188.36.227 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mancalledsting reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: CU block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967889508 by Muboshgu (talk)Erasing my edits won't delete the body camera footage"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 967888950 by Ian.thomson (talk)This is an encyclpodia and not a place for political activism. Defeat is hard accept,I know, but we have to follow the NPOV policy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 967888569 by Ian.thomson (talk)Then edit the words and don't erase the source"
 * 4)  "/* State civil rights action */"


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

I'm getting a WP:NOTHERE vibe, looking through their past edits and talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * See Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd
 * Comments:
 * Let's be real, a user who reads that "a panicked and fearful Floyd pleading with the officers in the minutes before his death, saying “I’m not a bad guy!” as they tried to wrestle him into a squad car" merely as "he was resisting arrest!" is not someone who should be editing articles relating to race (at a minimum). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree this user is edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 72 hours, but have no issues with any admin change the block duration if they see fit. There are definitely significant issues with Mancalledsting's approach to editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Now checkuser blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon reported by User:BorkNein (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [unnecessary, user is well aware of edit warring policy]

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

Comments: Put simply, Guy Macon wants to enforce his preferred RfC format onto the one I had alreayd chosen. As shown above from the preceding debate between us, he is well aware that these are optional formatting choices, left entirely at the discretion of the filer. He boldly changed it, even though he was likely already aware from that discussion that I would not agree to the change. I reverted, telling him clearly I wanted my preference to be respected, and not to falsely claim to be "fixing" something which is explicitly left up to users to choose, expecting him to then discuss the issue, as he is required to do. Instead, he has simply repeated the exact same format change a second time, as part of adding his response, without explaining why he also chose to repeat this contested edit, in violation of the edit warring policy. Since he has made it very clear he intends to report me should I ever edit war, I have come here rather than do so, but be in no doubt, I absolutely do not agree to his edit. Please restore my original formatting, and remind Guy Macon of the edit warring policy. BorkNein (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to save time. The filer's edits messed up formatting for no understandable reason. Obviously the incorrect venue anyhow. Pardons if I floated above my pay grade. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. The correct venue for such a conduct dispute is WP:ANI, not here. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf reported by User:Number 57 (Result: 2 weeks, sitewide and one week, partial, respectively)
2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:29, 16 July 2020
 * 2) 10:34, 16 July 2020
 * 3) 10:38, 16 July 2020
 * 4) 11:02, 16 July 2020

Although a discussion has been ongoing at User talk:Aréat, Koavf has continued reverting. Number  5  7  10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Exception #4 is "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." and removing sources for information and calling sourcing "pointless" seems to be a pretty clear example of what someone would say constitutes vandalism, since WP:V and WP:OR are bedrock policies, in addition to MOS:TABLECAPTION. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's been estabished in the past that merely "removing sourced material" isn't (generally) considered vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), unfortunately. Having said that,, I think it's pretty unhelpful to dismiss any good-faith attempt to increase accessibility for our screen-reader users as pointless. Pinging who can advise, I think, on WP:ACCESS requirements.But Koavf, honestly, filing retaliatory reports (per below) is...not helpful :)   ——  § erial  10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you think that report lacks merit, I will withdraw it per your recommendation. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; as much as you might think you're right, it's as much about the optics as anything else (even if it wasn't retaliatory, it's gong to appear so—and that, not your diffs, might colour your whole report). So yes, I suggest that you withdraw that report and keep the discussion focused here (for instance, as you say, pointing out that another party showed an equal-willingnes to edit-war and an equal unwilingnes to discuss on talk). You might also argue that, if you were acting per ACCESS, your edits were in compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (AKA ISO/IEC 40500:2012). ——  § erial  10:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, sourcing was not being removed. The table source is in the final row. The claim that this constitutes reverting vandalism is ridiculous. Number   5  7  10:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Rationale: Several edits made by removed basic accessibility features:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952453&oldid=967952257
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952920&oldid=967952592
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953416&oldid=967953070
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953757&oldid=967953528

See User talk:Aréat, where I discussed this with him. While that conversation was happening, made his WP:POINT-y edit which was bad faith, willfully hostile to blind users, and done purely for the purpose of decreasing the quality of the article. I think that it is reasonable to call his edit vandalism and my attempt to undo it was for the purpose of undoing vandalism (cf. how I did not revert the removal of colum and row scopes repeatedly INS nor did I revert Aréat's fourth revert but let it stand). ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that I did something "for the purpose of decreasing the quality of the article" is as ridiculous as the claim above about removing sourcing. I removed a caption that duplicated a heading directly above it. Unless screenreaders cannot read section headings, there does not seem to be any point to having a caption directly below one. Number   5  7  11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you saw that MOS:TABLECAPTION was explicitly cited in the edit summaries and the user talk page referenced above and that says unequivocally that all data tables need captions, then why did you defy this for this one table? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already given you the answer above. A dispute over this is not a justification for violating 3RR. Number   5  7  11:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

. Sitewide, as this is the second 3RR violation by Justin within the span of a mere few weeks. As for Aréat, it is not clear that they have reverted four times (the first edit may be a bold edit rather than a revert) — please feel free to clarify. El_C 12:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

. Partial block. Aréat also blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Haider Khan10 reported by User:Azmarai76 (Result: Malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * We don't even know which editor you are trying to report. – EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SP013 reported by User:Arjann (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967492561&oldid=967492333
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967999141&oldid=967871669
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967492333&oldid=967055842


 * Comment First one is not a revert as it was just a upload of a new version of the file. SP013 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyphoidbomb#Editor_Arjann I am trying to explain him here but he is unwilling to understand. ]

User:58.179.159.63 reported by User:Redthreadhx (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments: Attempt to negotiate in the user's talk page by another editor proved futile as it was swiftly deleted. I was also accused of vandalism by the user. Redthreadhx (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. Discussion as to which chart is the best can take place on Talk. The IP's charge of vandalism is clearly incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Reason for report: edit warring (no 3RR violation yet due to decision to seek intervention here rather than continue edit warring; WP:0RR and WP:1RR applicable after ample notice that user's actions violate WP policies and guidelines)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) : edit summary: "Why"
 * 2) : edit summary: "No. explain what you are doing, and why. you know this well enough"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 
 * 

Attempt to resolve dispute through discussion:


 * : edit summary: "that's not how this works; no one need seek approval for a change on the basis that changes must be justified; on the contrary: if there's real concern about an edit, it is up to you to at the very least provide an *argument* that it's actually bad, rather than just not needed"

Comments:

NB: User:Drmies's talk page is locked, so notification of this report has been left as a response to Drmies's recent messages on my own talk page and User talk:Andrew Gray (with a request in the latter case to move the discussion here). 66.90.149.252 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on this IP user's informing multiple unrelated users at and, I believe this is one of our edit-warring IP LTAs. See also  (see summary).  Java  Hurricane  16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

. IP, this is the wrong approach. Just explain yourself better, that is all that is being asked of you. All this extra-drama is not necessary and is discouraged. El_C 16:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:El_C, at the risk of making a political reference and having the whole comment discounted because of it, there's sort of a big debate going on in the world right now about the lack of accountability for people with power. If Drmies were not a user with special editing privileges, his or her action here would not be dismissed like this.  This would *simply not be allowed* if the usernames here were swapped, and we were only considering the substance of what has actually happened and the comments folks have actually made.


 * And User:JavaHurricane's comments are hardly unbiased—they're involved in the edit warring. And also, like Drmies's comments, dishonest: I reached out to User:Andrew Gray _before_ it escalated into an edit war—precisely to keep it from escalating into an edit war—and my comments to User:David Gerard are hardly indicative of whatever JavaHurricane is suggesting: reaching out to David Gerard, as I mentioned in that very comment, was a "masochistic attempt to stack the deck *against* me".  (On the other hand, if you consider the number of established users who've stepped in to, for lack of a better word, act in Drmies's favor, then the suggestion would actually be apropos.)


 * Please consider the long-term consequences here, especially what this means for Drmies's interactions with other editors—particularly IPs. See .  This is WP:OWNERSHIP gatekeeping through-and-through.  The onus is on Drmies to actually provide an argument why the edit *shouldn't* be kept—not on an editor to seek Drmies's approval before making a change. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (the IP editor in question)
 * The change the IP was attempting to force into the article was odd, adding nothing useful. Clearly it required explanation. Frankly, it looked like the type of edits we get where someone is just trying to stick their own name into an article. I can't imagine a different outcome if someone with 20 edits had reverted. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If that were the reason the edit had been reverted, you'd have a point. But it's not.  To repeat WP:OWNERSHIP is not a valid reason to revert, no matter the stature of the user. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why I was asked to weigh in on this, but thought I should respond to say I'd seen it - it seems there is now a start at some discussion on Talk:setuid, which is what I was going to recommend, so I will bow out again. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: No matter what comes of this particular issue in this particular article, this incident was mishandled. I will fight to my own death (figuratively; on Wikipedia) to quash WP:OWN issues on this site. These shenanigans should not fly, and User:JavaHurricane and User:Objective3000 are just as culpable as the initial actor (User:Drmies) here. Serious question: how is this not outright embarrassing and/or shameful for you? You spit out 2 second replies and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the ethos and history of this project. I'm monitoring your interactions, and combing through your history. Quit fucking this up. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BRD, an accepted standard for what to do after someone disagrees with an edit someone else makes. And see also WP:ES, an accepted standard for even a token attempt to persuade others that a possibly arbitrary- or valueless-looking edit has merit. If I saw this same behavior between two IPs, I'd come down against the original who kept unexplainedly redoing it because our policies and guidelines are that editors work hard to collaborate and discuss when it becomes clear that there is opposition to one's ideas. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ONUS, which is policy. All the best, ——  Serial # 09:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Off-topic. The edit in question is an unexplained change of the user/account-names in apparently-fictitious (editorially-created) example shell commands--no actual encyclopediac claims, and no add/remove/change that to make any such content more or less verifiable. DMacks (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and Drmies actually did explain legitimate-sounding concerns about the edit ; not in a usual place, but clearly IP saw it based on the fact that they responded to it there. By timeline, the IP-account then did not repeat the edit (that's instead when C. A. Russell did). DMacks (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind you,, comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked.  Please do not ever do that again.   ——  Serial # 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Further,, comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by you to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior.  ——  Serial # 09:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And per DMacks' comment regarding WP:ES, this editsummary indicates they know all about them already: although perhaps less about WP:NPA, considering its contents . ——  Serial # 09:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that C A Russell is not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately.  ——  Serial # 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 10:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, "engineered to prove a point"? No. Please limit your feedback to coherent ones. 1. User Drmies violates Wikipedia policies. 2. I reach out to an admin to head off edit warring and provide more-than-ample warning to Drmies that would dissuade either any rational person or anyone who actually gives two shits about what this project stands for from repeating the original ill-considered revert. 3. Drmies persists. 4. I report this clear-cut violation here, on the administrators' noticeboard—you know, where this sort of thing is supposed to be handled. 5. The administrators who respond utterly fail to do their job, opting to provide cover for the admin—with Drmies themselves having left comments of his or her own revealing that (a) Drmies was out of his or her depth and had no idea what they were doing in that article, and (b) that he or she actually feared being sanctioned (why? because of course they'd be sanctioned—after all they had gotten sloppy and had done a bad a stupid thing).

So, then, in response to that failure on the part of the responding admins, I leave a comment somewhere. And you.... point that comment in some sort of tortured, and completely backwards cause-and-effect to explain the earlier thing?

Do you understand the concept of the word anachronism?

No. There was no engineering here, except the kneejerk dismissal of a complaint against one of Wikipedia's own anointed, i.e., engineering on your part.

And please, any cursory glance at my edit history will reveal gnome-like editing almost entirely to content space for over a decade, because I simply don't care for this behind-the-scenes, meta drama. Every time I have to deal with the kind of nonsense I'm being made to deal with here now, my edits drop. The only intended outcome here was to better the affected article by getting rid of a rather embarrassing choice of names. To believe that I wanted to get involved into an inane edit war with an oblivious, well-intentioned-but-ultimately-ill-equipped admin is ''simply. ridiculous.''

Grow up, grow a spine, and do your duty instead of covering for misbehaving admins. Censure of Drmies in this case—which is what should have happened in response to the original incident report—is the only correct way of handling this incident. Anything else is a total failure of accountability. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, in response to User:DMacks the word "onus" might be applicable, but if you'd taken the time to read the policy you linked to, it is absolutely inapplicable to this situation. And WP:BRD is a policy—but not one characterized the actions Drmies took here. I repeat myself, this is a straightforward case of WP:OWNERSHIP through-and-through. Stop covering for bad actors. Geez. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you feel you had a case does not excuse you to then break every rule in the book (see litany of offences above). And you clearly haven't read ONUS or you would realize that DMacks was disputing its applicability). Time to drop the stick, I suggest. ——  Serial # 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * And you clearly haven't read ONUS or you would realize that DMacks was disputing its applicability Does this sentence actually make sense when you read it back to yourself?


 * Meanwhile, the prescribed action (bringing up the changes on the article talk page) actually occurred (refer to Andrew Gray's comments above) came to fruition! And User:Drmies, who was so quick to click "undo" before and so plausibly wanted discussion took the opportunity then to do... absolutely nothing.  So now we have clueless users like User:Calton wading in, this time even more out of their depth as a result of this completely absurd flouting of WP:OWNERSHIP and admin duties, and... reverts.  So now we have (a) absolutely no need for justification for the change, since that's not how editing works, (b) no justification for any of the reverts, nor any engagement on the talk page, and (c) a still absurdly embarrassing section on the article in question.


 * So, what's the resolution here? What the hell do you actually want?  Here's what I want: accountability, no powertripping admins, and no guff for making (good!) edits to articles with demands that they first meet approval of folks who admit they have no background or means of grappling with the subject matter at hand. Do your duty. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 10:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RGW and WP:POLEMIC: "Do your duty". All the best! ——  Serial # 11:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

By all means, continue citing irrelevant WP:WP pages at me and issuing passive aggressive faux niceties. It's not clever, it's just unbecoming. (And censure Drmies.) -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 11:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Too many aspersions, bad faith, and incivility in your review here, . You are not exempt from these because you feel like you're critiquing the powers-that-be. This report is closed. If you want to bring it or any of its components to review, please do so properly at AN or ANI. Generally, few editors are going to notice this report, anyway. As for your "query," two reverts almost always results in a no violation close. The IP should have provided better answers in their edit summaries or elsewhere, and so they were cautioned against failing to do so at that time. I try to treat all editors fairly and I take exception to the implication that it is in any way otherwise. El_C 11:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A report that starts with an admin's ownership problems and trigger-happy, zero-substance reverts and then ends with chastizing remarks about the reporter's "aspersions, bad faith, and incivility", without a hint of acknowledgement that the would-be WP:OWNER's insistence on satisfying their whims is precisely an embodiment of the latter trio? Perfect way to cap everything off.  It's pretty breathtakingly unaware to say that you "take exception" in this instance as if it's supposed to have any import here.  Geez, here I am on the admin's noticeboard because of my "capacity to tremble with indignation" over the "injustice" of an admin flouting the rules, but I must concede, truly that is nothing in comparison to your taking exception and the discomfort you're made to feel when confronted with your failure to hold said admin accountable.  It's a good thing your comfort or discomfort matter and the charter of this project and its policies don't, otherwise we'd be in a real pickle.  Being dismissive of reports of users' clear-cut examples of bad behavior when those users are admins is, of course, the most paramount thing to strive for on Wikipedia.


 * You know the gesture towards review is an empty one, because by the time anyone reads through this cesspool, they'll be so turned off by my indignation that kicked in after the original finding that they'll have forgotten that this is really about censure of Drmies and holding admins accountable for clear-cut policy violations. Add to that the fundamental inability to realize that they can both hold Drmies accountable and still think that I'm unlikeable, and we've got a winning recipe for the continued abuse of power by people who shouldn't hold it in the first place and their peers who cover for them.


 * Meanwhile, your esteemed colleague has made the carefully considered decision to pop up over on Talk:setuid to drop taunts. I understand that no one here cares about even the appearance of impartiality, but surely one of you would still think it best to show up and reign the smug joker in.  Geez, this project well and truly has devolved into an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel . -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 14:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your repeated claims of WP:OWN are flat out wrong. Frankly, you need to take a break, voluntarily or not. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @O3000 your prediction came true...they have. ——  § erial  19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:136.2.16.181 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 968031601 by Apollo1203 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 968031269 by Apollo1203 (talk) BAPS did not exist when this book was made. And they are a breakoff group. How does including their ideology make sense?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 968030292 by Apollo1203 (talk) You don't need a talk page discussion to remove biases. They are your personal beliefs and you are misleading readers."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 968011495 by Apollo1203 (talk) Remove Biases. Vandal was unable to handle it."


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


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

Please also note WP:3RR violation on Swaminarayan Sampradaya as well. Ifnord (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Partial blocked from Vachanamrut and Swaminarayan Sampradaya for 24 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:86.143.34.149 reported by User:Fazzo29 (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 968038862 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 968037809 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 968037226 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 968028726 by Add92 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 968026628 by Add92 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 968024026 by 200.44.80.85 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Template:2019–20 EFL Championship table. (TW)"
 * 2)   "edit warring warning"


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


 * Comments:
 * As this is the IPs second block for the same disruption, I've partially blocked them from editing the template namespace for 1 week.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GDBarry reported by User:Funky Snack (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 14:32, 15 July 2020 diff hist -939‎  Times Radio ‎
 * 14:27, 15 July 2020 diff hist +50‎  Times Radio ‎ Ditto
 * 14:26, 15 July 2020 diff hist +44‎  Times Radio ‎ Edited heading to make it accurate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Times_Radio and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDBarry.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User believes he has the right to have the final say. User has removed the section several times.

Comments:

Please see the article's talk page, where I have already made all my arguments. I see no point in repeating them here. GDBarry (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please leave this for a decision to be made by consensus. You have been disruptive to Times Radio so this is why the warning has been submitted.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The way you have left the article is highly inaccurate and misleading. I'm not happy with it, but I won't change it again until a decision has been made here.  GDBarry (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please understand that all articles must meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO criteria. Your request of adding Luke Jones "because he's on a national radio station" doesn't hold up. As other users have suggested on the talk page, just because someone is on a national radio station doesn't mean they are notable. Meantime, I have moved all presenters into one block, removing "Notable". Until a decision has been reached, please refrain from making anymore edits.  -  Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 15:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC}
 * That was not my reason, as I have already explained on the talk page. I have submitted an article for Luke Jones which I believe meets the notability criteria.  He played a prominent part in the station's launch day on 29 June 2020 and received detailed write-ups in the Guardian and Daily Telegraph.  I submitted an article for inclusion on 8 July 2020 which included quotes from both these reviews.  It is now waiting to be approved.  I do not see how you or anyone else have the power to pre-judge the approval process.  GDBarry (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, just because someone has a passing comment in the press doesn't mean they warrant an article. So many people are mentioned in the press, yet if EVERYONE who had a mention in an article online, we'd crash Wikipedia. As mentioned, please refrain from making any further edits until your article is approved/declined.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 15:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will wait until there's a decision from the admins before I make any further edits to the Times Radio article. If they say I can't include Luke Jones's name until he has a stand-alone article, then I won't.  If they say it's OK to do so, then I will.  GDBarry (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User now adding people to PM (BBC Radio 4) with no content. Further disruptive editing going against Wiki rules  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please tell me which rules I have violated. I am not aware of any rule on Wikipedia that forbids the mention of people who do not have Wikipedia entries - particularly when they are distingushed former presenters with many years' service, mentioned in articles about the programme.  An awful lot of other articles about long-running radio and TV programmes will need to be edited severely if there is a rule forbidding this.  GDBarry (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I note that you didn't take out any of the people I added who do have Wikipedia entries, but had not been previously mentioned. How about thanking me for adding them and making the article more comprehensive?  GDBarry (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding those with articles is fine. To add people into lists of names, they must be notable and have articles as per WP:BIO.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule. The correct rule is the one at WP:LISTBIO, as I've already said.  But if you want to go through every article on every single radio and TV programme that's ever been broadcast taking out every mention of everyone who doesn't have an existing Wikipedia article, good luck to you.  There are an awful lot of people who you'd be airbrushing out of broadcasting history, and I don't believe that's the purpose of Wikipedia.  GDBarry (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also see the discussion I had at here, where it was clearly stated that "WP:LISTBIO is the policy for embedded lists and it was rewritten a few years ago to make it clear that notability is not required for inclusion in embedded lists just as it's not required for any other content in an article".

I thought this was a page where the admins could resolve disputes, but it just seems to be a page for continuing the argument we were having on the talk page. Is there anywhere we can get a definitive pronouncement on this? GDBarry (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone back to discussing this on the Talk:Times Radio page. There's clearly nothing happening here. GDBarry (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This page isn't really for discussion. The only reason I am involved in a discussion in this page is being polite and replying to you. These requests can take some time, so please be patient.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 15:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So what's it for then? This whole process is getting precisely nowhere.  I didn't ask for the matter to be referred here, you did it off your own bat.  It's supposed to be for when issues can't be resolved on the Talk page.  I'm quite happy to resolve it on the Talk page.  I think you are wasting the admins' time.  GDBarry (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never reverted an edit on that article, or on any other Wikipedia article to the best of my knowledge. In fact I don't think I even know how to revert edits.  Why have I been accused of doing something I have never done?


 * As for "editor consensus", it looks as though there isn't going to be any. Stalemate.  GDBarry (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Straight away GDBarry DELETED the presenters from PM (BBC Radio 4), an article, which is also the subject of an ongoing edit war. EdJohnston, please can this be taken into consideration as this user has been abusive and going against Wiki protocol re articles. Please can his edit be reverted. Thanks.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I deleted a list of former presenters which I had created myself. I did so because I didn't want another edit war.  Can't I delete my own submissions if I want to?  GDBarry (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think the list ought to be removed from the article, why not propose this on the talk page and maybe somebody (not currently warned) will do it? Since I closed this AN3 there have not been any reverts by either of you, luckily. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the point here is that the user deleted the list AFTER being warned EdJohnston.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I repeat again - I have never reverted any edits on Wikipedia. I do not know how to do it.  Nor do I wish to find out.  GDBarry (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You deleted the list after you were warned!  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. I deleted the list in order to avoid any further edit warring.  That was not reverting someone else's edit - that was removing something that I'd created myself.  GDBarry (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You still made an edit when you were told not to  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 21:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not told not to make any edits to the PM article. I was told not to edit the Times Radio article.  You brought the PM article into the discussion even though it's an entirely separate issue.  GDBarry (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No reverting/making changing to other pages in discussion. Until a decision on the RfC has been reached, I suggest you stop this edit warring. - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 21:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not edit warring. I deleted that list in order to avoid edit warring.  You removed the names of a number of distinguished former presenters of the programme, one of whom served for twenty years.  No one has ever tried to do that before.  Rather than getting into another edit war I thought the best thing to do was to remove the list entirely.  Please do not use the PM article as a proxy for the dispute over Times Radio and Luke Jones.  GDBarry (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Balolay reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This version. The dispute is over whether to include the text The show has also received criticism for a lack of historical accuracy, depiction of non-Muslims in a negative manner and for glorifying Islamic fundamentalism. Balolay repeatedly inserts this text and Joelaroche (apparently a new user) repeatedly removes it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:23, July 14, 2020
 * 2) 13:24, July 13, 2020‎
 * 3) 12:55, July 13, 2020
 * 4) 12:20, July 13, 2020
 * 5) 12:12, July 13, 2020
 * 6) 12:05, July 13, 2020
 * 7) 12:00, July 13, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Balolay has been blocked twice previously for edit warring, see this and this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some discussion here. Note I'm not involved in this article dispute.

Comments: I have seen a pattern of edit-warring by Balolay, despite having been blocked twice for edit-warring. In this case Balolay makes a whopping 7 reverts in less than 24 hours! Balolay is also currently edit-warring at Rape in Islamic law, not bothering to respond to concerns of WP:NOR posted on the talk page.VR talk  15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The very fact that a user who has been on Wikipedia for 12 years and is supposedly well versed on Wikipedia rules has to dig up my past edits on completely separate articles (whose disputes were resolved or are being actively discussed eg., Talk:Diriliş: Ertuğrul) in order to gain leverage is very alarming and downright harrasmest.


 * Regarding my edits on Rape in Islamic law, I ask administrators to kindly read the discussions on Talk:Rape in Islamic law and Talk:Concubinage in Islam. The user has been in disagreement with almost every other editor including, , , , . When he has nothing left to argue about he accuses them of WP:CANVASSING as he/she did here . Admins like El_C pointed it out |here too.


 * Another trait that this editor has shown is to make POV edits under the guise of see talk page as here, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the issue was already solved here.


 * My conclusion is that this editor being a Muslim can't let go of his/her inherent bias when editing Islam related articles. Seeing the edits and exhaustive discussions on Talk:Rape in Islamic law and Talk:Concubinage in Islam, it is obvious that User:Vice regent has done systematic whitewashing of Islam related articles on Wikipedia by giving one sided perspectives, while harrasing other editors who disagree. This should be alarming for the entire Wikipedia community. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly edit warring on both sides. But for some reason Vice regent has chosen to report only one side. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Balolay is blocked 72 hours for a long term pattern of edit warring. He restored his favored paragraph to the lead about seven times on July 13 and 14. On his seventh revert he invites others to wait for consensus. (It seems he thinks the rules apply to others, but not to him). Meanwhile he's been reverting at Rape in Islamic law. I take note he was blocked for sockpuppetry as recently as May 22. He and his sock were both editing the same report at AN3 and pretending not to know each other! I think this is taking too many liberties with our policy; he is lucky his sock block was not indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GevHev4 reported by User:Solavirum (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've tried my best to protect the NPOV in this article but thr afromentioned user keeps getting involved in an edit war and neglects the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page:
 * was not notified of this report. I have done so. –Darkwind (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . I do not see any evidence of edit warring on this article. –Darkwind (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Typ932 reported by User:Davey2010 (result: Typ932 all participants warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 968031422 by Typ932 (talk): Go yourself to get consesus for  you changes, you started this shit over year ago., using TW"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 968030695 by Typ932 (talk): Revert this mischief using TW"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 968030230 by Typ932 (talk): Yes everyone has the right to edit, you have no fucking reasion to revert my edits, because there is nothning against rules using TW"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 968023957 by Typ932 (talk): No fucking need to edit this article, there is no rule how talbes should looklike using TW"
 * 5)  "engine table layout, no need that huge table which messes the layout and is not in line with other Alfa articles."


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


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


 * Comments:

Back in July 2019 I removed unneeded table coding, Typ reverted, edit warred, and got warned,

Unfortunately they've returned today to Alfa Romeo 166 and to Alfa Romeo 156 and have reverted everyones additions to the tables simply to add the coding back,

They'd also resorted to these personal attacks which were totally uncalled for.

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes this guy has bullied my over year of time period, he has now reason to revert and change my edits all the time. He claims I need consensus If I edit articles and hes doesnt need? There is no rules in Wikipedia how tables should look like. I have same rights here to edit as everyone else. Im sick and tired of this guy, so pls do something. He made also personal attacks year ago.-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't bully people and you haven't been bullied, If I make a change and for a year no one cares - the onus is then on the reverting person to get consensus because the edit has remained for so long and therefore is seen as being an okay edit.
 * As explained to you there is now a bot that removes part of the table coding I'd removed (I don't know what the bot's called as I came across it randomly but I've definitely seen it remove cellpadding),
 * You were told last year to get consensus and to talk to people but instead you resort edit warring and calling people assholes and idiots!. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kid you are not my dad, read what I just post. You dont tell to me what I can do here -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said I was, You can either abide by WP:BRD or you can leave, You don't get to edit war a year later when there's a talkpage a click away!. Like I said the onus is on you to get consensus for the change however it's worth noting another editor too had reverted you there which again indicates they agree with my changes and or they saw no problems with those changes. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So if anyone else is not reverting your edits they agree its ok? sure. And once again Its not my job to get consensus,its your job to get consensus if you start that edit warring and changin pages which are fullu under guidelines and policies. You can always start discussions in talk page and discuss about your questionable edits before you make anything. You were the person who started the unneeded editing. I can edit here as freely as everyone else. So you have 2 choices leave or stop this bullying -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It is also your job to seek a consensus since only you think that those codes should be restored. You've so far reverted a bot's edits and are causing disruption over pages. No one else thinks the same way as you or agrees with your changes. Neither this site, nor those pages are owned by you to decide who should seek a consensus or not. Give WP:BRD and WP:OWN a read before you make other weird claims. Two editors disagree with you on the changes you're making right now. So its high time you seek agreement of others before restoring your preferred changes. The fact that you're ordering others what to do and then pretending to be a victim of bullying makes this case strong against you. U1 quattro  TALK  02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * it is WOSLinker bot. U1 quattro  TALK  02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Typ932, I came this close to blocking you, for the edit warring, the obstinate behavior, and the uncollegial remarks, all of which is probably worth a week of vacation. If you revert again there, I will be happy to block you for a couple of days or longer, since you should know better. Please stop insulting other editors in your edit summaries, please copyedit your edit summaries and messages before you save them--and seek the article talk pages if you wish to win your case. That is all. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * blocking this user would be more appropriate after continued display of offensive behaviour as seen here. U1 quattro  TALK  10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont care of your blockings,anyone can edit here anonymoysly if want. Seems already 2 biased admins here already, Mr Davey started all this over year ago and he made also 1st personal attacks and insults, and is acting like super master god admin here to tell what people can do or not to do here. Anyway Im out of Wikipedia after 13 years, I dont want to play with kids anymore.Bye -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not your site in the first place. If you are not happy, you can leave and I can see you are already "fed up" after seeing disruptive messages on your talk and user pages. You can consider making your own site and be the boss there but that is not happening here. U1 quattro  TALK  10:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is your and daveys site? ok. Keep up the "good work" and bullying people. bye
 * re. I dont care of your blockings,anyone can edit here anonymoysly if want. This sounds as if you are suggesting that, should ye be blocked, you will return and edit as an IP? Two things must ye know. Firstly, we're not stupid. Secondly, please read this page to find out the consequences of being caught doing so. ——  § erial  10:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but this is not your site either to tell others what they should do and be stubborn when you are in the wrong. Buh bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out. U1 quattro  TALK  10:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeh keep insulting, what else we can wait from kids. And for that admim: Seems you are not so smart to clear this thing, I havent do nothing wrong here. That Davey started this over year ago and one admin deciced it wrongly favoring him and now you do the same thing. As said many times I havent break any rules at 1st place, but Im sick and tired ot these home policies here. Mr U1Quattro is just making revenge attack towards me because some of my edits in history didnt please him. . Everyone should have same right to edit here, Mr Daveys edits cant be rule here. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Crying because it wasn't in your favour? I thought you said you were leaving. U1 quattro  TALK  10:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - Not wanting to start an arguement here but why not block the user ? ..... He edit warred last year and was warned .... if we're not going to do anything about this user then what the hell's the point of me reporting them ? .... He's reached 4 reverts on both pages, that combined with the remarks all deserve a block in my book, sure he's not reverted since only because he's reverted hours ago and as such his version is live ...., This is textbook edit warring and it deserves a textbook block. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Also he's continued the revert here,  here, here, here, here and here (and on Alfa Romeo 156 here, here, here, here, here and here)- Do you still honestly believe this user doesn't warrant blocking?.
 * This user should've been blocked 10 hours ago and I'm astounded they haven't been, Needless to say I truly have lost faith in AN3, If we're simply going to warn him each time he edit wars then honestly what's even the point of me coming here anymore ?. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI as of writing this in total he's made 10 reverts on each page .... that's 20 combined .... Do we still believe warning is the best outcome here as I certainly don't, Not trying to milk it far from it I'm simply pointing out there's been more than 3-4 reverts here. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Even after a warning, this user is showing no signs to change their behaviour. Their bad behaviour as well as edit warring continues with the user violating WP:TW, WP:OWN and WP:3RR. U1 quattro  TALK  11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Within the past 24 hours, has reverted the article 4 times,  has reverted 5 times, and  has reverted 10 times. Why should I not block all of you right now? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is Typ932 who is at fault here for starting this mess. It is his inability to listen to warnings which warrants for a block. He was warned, yet acts like he owns this site . U1 quattro  TALK  13:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm warning you, . Someone else's edit warring is not an excuse for your own violation of WP:3RR. Stop now or be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno maybe because myself and U1 aren't the ones edit warring here ? .... If an editor returns, undoes everyones work and reinserts coding that shouldn't be there then they should be reverted no?..... – Davey 2010 Talk 13:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already let it be. There is no reason for aggressiveness now. U1 quattro  TALK  13:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Page fully protected for 2 days. I'm not blocking anyone, you're all participating in a revert war and I'm not giving an advantage to one side., consider yourself warned as well. Report incidents of edit warring to this board for admin attention, but do not join the edit war. WP:3RRNO lists the exemptions to the bright-line three-reverts rule, and this is not one of them. I will block for personal attacks if they continue, : you are to treat other editors with respect on this website, or we will show you the door. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Myself and U1 have abided by the page you're quoting here, Consider your warning ignored. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, ? You're not the ones edit warring? You didn't make nine reverts between the two of you within the past day? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the onus was on Typ to get consensus for his edits, not me or U1, I still stand by my reverts and still stand by the fact I did absolutely nothing wrong here, Whether I made 2 combined reverts or 10 at the end of the day I still don't see myself as being at fault here. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To put it mildly, your statements here do not give me confidence that you can contribute constructively to this article. I'm bowing out, but I hope you don't find yourself blocked before the end of the weekend. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's your opinion. The edits I've made to that article I've made to hundreds and other than Typ no one has ever had an issue and infact over half of what I was doing there WOSLinker does anyway .... so it's hard to see how I or U1 are the problem here, Typ undone good edits just to reinsert the table coding - that's disruptive editing, they were warned last year and told to stop - they've continued today .... so from my perspective I'm failing to understand how I'm the problem here? – Davey 2010 Talk 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I know that we also have a part reverting what Type932 did but shouldn't a block be more necessary considering that this user has completely ignored the warnings and have chosen to still behave in the same way as they did before. This user posted on my talk page as well as on Davey's with messages full of personal attacks and hatred. When a user is this out of control, I don't think a warning would suffice. U1 quattro  TALK  13:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To both of you: yes, Typ932 probably should have been blocked, and had both of you not also joined the edit war after making this report I presume would have taken that approach, though obviously I can't speak for him. But if I block one editor when three are edit warring then I'm taking a side in a content dispute, and admins are not allowed to use tools in that way. If you want your report to be "taken seriously" as you put it, make your report and wait for an admin to respond. Nothing that Typ932 was doing needed to be urgently removed, and regardless, if you're claiming an exception to the universal 3RR policy you are required to specify why your revert is exempt. If you're confused about this, please read the policy and ask questions if you need to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from Ivanvector and that's fair enough, FWIW I didn't actually realise I hit 4rr and it escaped my notice that I also hit 4rr on the other page so I too had reverted 8 times basically ... It sucks but that's life,
 * Could you also protect Alfa Romeo 166 please as I fear the edit warring will happen there too, Thanks for your comment/help here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it. Nobody's reverted since I protected the other article so I'll leave it to you three to work it out. Feel free to ping me if someone starts up a revert war again, I won't be so hesitant to block after all this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie will do Ivanvector, Thanks again for your help today even if we didn't see eye-to-eye your help is still always appreciated, Happy editing, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, please don't yell at the admins if you don't agree with their decision. When I left that note, the user had stopped, even after y'all's reverts. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Typ932, you should probably be blocked after all for the sheer stupidity of some of the remarks you made here. User:U1Quattro, what made you think it was a good idea to participate in a report on an edit-warring editor who is also guilty of personal attacks, and then getting in a tit-for-tat with that user on a noticeboard? Ivanvector, I would have blocked Typ932 for the next revert, yes, hoping they'd take this report seriously. And yes, they are all at fault, though Typ932 more than the others. Davey etc., if you're edit warring with another editor (yes you were, all of y'all were), and you file a report, and then you revert again--what do you think we admins would call that? You said "Could you also protect Alfa Romeo 166 please as I fear the edit warring will happen there too"--well, that's at least partly under your own control. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Not having a pop not at all but ofcourse they stopped reverting as their version was live ?, I personally did stop reverting after this was filed but sure reverting after doesn't really help anyone and potentially does more harm than good,
 * I'm sorry if it seemed like I was yelling - at that time I saw it as an editor adding disagreed content and basically not following BRD, As I said I didn't realise I hit 4rr nor did I take into account the article which whilst I did account Typs edits to it I never accounted mine (just didn't think about it),
 * Anyway I think it's safe to we all made errors/mistakes today and we can all certainly learn from them and do things better in future. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:96.244.140.242 reported by User:Ponyo (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:


 * IP continues to edit war to restore promotional text to Beth Shalom Congregation (Columbia, Maryland). I provided them with our COI guidelines and requested that they use the article talk page to request changes, but they're simply ignoring the information provided and reverting.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, I realize that I'm at 3 reverts, but the material being added consists of a ton of embedded links to their marketing materials and platforms (hence why they are are also edit warring with Xlinkbot).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as several uncited claims about living people. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A recently registered account is also demonstrating the same behaviour. Darren-M   talk  23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP has registered an account a new account showed up: . Their first edit was continuing the edit war. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2( Edited at 00:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC); EVP is possibly a joe jobbing attempt )
 * Result: IP blocked one week, User:ExpressViewPortal is blocked 48 hours. Based on behavior, this account is likely to be the same person as the IP. The IP has never responded on their talk page to anything. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another COI account has now been created and is also removing sourced content and replacing it with unsupported text and not using the talk page to request edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Sharonschreiberg for socking and am putting two months of EC protection on the article to hamper any newly-created socks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Arjann reported by User:SP013 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 967998723 by SP013 (talk) Please do not removed sourced information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 967682429 by Sush150 (talk) - Please do not remove referenced/sources information"
 * 3)  "Restoring page version to sourced and valid information"
 * 1)  "Restoring page version to sourced and valid information"


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

Keeps changing the Music section after giving a clear and concise reason as to why there should be a different Inbox and a track listing as a majority of Indian film articles have a Infobox Album and a tracklisting. SP013 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – If there is still disagreement follow the steps of WP:DR. Contrary to Arjann's edit summary there is no ban on removal of sourced information. If either of you believes that unsourced information is present, explain on the talk page what it is. The question of which version is better for the article needs consensus to determine. At present there is nothing on the article talk page, suggesting that no DR has been attempted by either side. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)