Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive414

User:Drevolt reported by User:PurpleDeskChair (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Even after the report continues to edit war. He claims that one source allows him to edit the text. However there has been a several year long consensus that it is top ten. He has been called out on several article talks about his vandalism. The Talk has already built a consensus. I want to be civil but his constant hijacking of the article is clearly not in good faith:
 * 2) Drevolt deletes the more detailed USNews source which affirms the lead text:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Same as the two cases below-- plain and simple edit warring:
 * 4) Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead:
 * 5) Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead despite regular and sustained objections by other contributors, sources, and the talk:
 * 6) Historical-- undoes contribution to rankings tab. I only include this example to illustrate his past history with this theme and how it is continuing. It does not relate to the present edit war:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am a new Wikipedia editor so please forgive me if not using the correct terminology. For the past few weeks, Drevolt has been editing the University of Chicago wikipedia page to include that it is among the top 15 world universities in the lead paragraph. For several years the lead paragraph was that it was top ten in the world-- and all sources provided substantiate that. Nothing has changed and regular contributors all have a consensus around the former lead paragraph. However, for the past week Drevolt has been warring to have it phrased as top fifteen and has frequently undone other users edits to maintain its status. He refuses to use the chat feature and only undos other users edits. He is regularly called out for this. I am aware that he is also warring on the University of California, Berkeley page as well and has already been disciplined for a similar offense. In the UChicago article talk section, he has already been admonished for edit warring by several other contributors in past instances-- this is not a novel occurrence. I have attached a link from March of this year where (for several years leading up to this past week or so) the lead paragraph has been 'top ten on various national and international publications'-- Drevolt has not accepted this reality. I did not attach all links! There are many other cases of Drevolt edit warring on this article from past weeks. Please put a stop to this user's edit warring. As mentioned before, I am new to reporting users. Please let me know if I can update anything to conform to your guidelines.
 * PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. However, I'd also like to point out that prior to a recent change (and to PurpleDeskChair's disruptive editing), I hadn't edited the page in "the past few weeks", and my recent activity doesn't meet the 3RR definition of edit warring. My previous edits came two months ago in response to a sockpuppet campaign on the page from User:WildlyAccurate, who has since been permanently blocked for sockpuppeting after I reported it. Given the fact that User:PurpleDeskChair created this account yesterday and yet seems to already know a suspicious amount about the page history (and has a similar editing pattern to that of User:WildlyAccurate), I'm at least suspicious that this is the same user. Also, as a side note, I have not been "disciplined" for anything on the Berkeley page, whatever that means. --Drevolt (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I first would like to note that I do not know that other user. I am an independent person with his first Wikipedia account. You have made two undoes in 24 hours and an edit all related to rankings. As well, you have made similar edits regarding rankings in the past. So much so that the talk is dominated by user complaints of your harassment of the page. You have a pattern on several university articles to mention rankings in a way which is unnecessarily negative. I do not believe you are acting in good faith when editing this article. Earlier today the UCBerkeley page got protected because of your continual edit warring on the exact same topic. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. The user's recent disruptive behavior closely resembles the wave of disruptive editing by sockpuppet accounts that occurred on the page in May 2020. Please see the sockpuppet investigation here for more information. --Drevolt (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This sockpuppet report launched by you falls under the Wikipedia Harassment Policy as Drevolt is retaliating against me for reporting their edit warring: PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to share that his frivolous report of me as a sockpuppet has come out negative. Meanwhile, Drevolt continued weaponizing Wikipedia's editing into a personal battle on several University Wikipedia articles to adjust their rankings. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting at this point Drevolt has violated the 3RR rule. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, still haven't. --Drevolt (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * While it does not pass the 24 hr threshold-- you have continuously and repeatedly done the same action well above the '3' minimum within 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's one of the exceptions to the 3RR policy: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." Given your various connections to the many sockpuppet accounts that have been blocked for editing on that page, I expect the final decision in the ongoing sockpuppet investigation to provide pretty clear vindication on this point. --Drevolt (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you speak of? Your only claim is that we 'sound similar'. I do not know these users and have not engaged with them and the fact is no admin/CU has found ANY EVIDENCE to support your allegations. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

'''Alright, I might as well just address these point by point. Of the six diffs you have linked:'''
 * 1) This one is reverting an edit by a confirmed sockpuppet of WildlyAccurate who is now blocked.
 * 2) This one is reverting an obviously non-constructive change to a cited source (the sentence is about global rankings, so replacing a source about global rankings with one about domestic rankings was not appropriate there).
 * 3) Another was a revert of your edit which directly contradicted one of the cited sources and so uncontroversially did not belong there.
 * 4) Another was to revert your edit warring with Contributor 321, who had rightly reverted an anonymous IP edit with no edit summary.
 * 5) Another is from several months ago and is not relevant to your present report.

Even if these edits were not spread out over a longer period than is covered by 3RR (which they were), they were also good faith edits made in in order to combat persistent problems with sock puppetry on this article. You don't have a case here. --Drevolt (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Drevolt, these claims have been debunked. SEVERAL admins and CUs said they found no evidence I am a sock puppet. Cut it out with these personal attacks and let’s instead try to be productive about this all. I’ve invited every user to participate in the talk discussion on the article. You constantly resort to attacking my existence instead of responding to my ideas. Clear ad hominem attacks:  PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I call you a sock puppet in any of that? Please reread it and click through to the linked pages, I was referring to an edit by a confirmed sockpuppet account. Please point out a single claim that I just made that was "debunked". --Drevolt (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You called me a sock puppet here and here: . Even after admins said I likely wasn’t one, you insisted on it. They defended that it is highly unlikely I am one and your report that I am a sock puppet was closed without any disciplinary action against me. Stop harassing me— it isn’t a healthy hobby. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You replied to my comment and said that 1) I was calling you a sock puppet in that comment, which I wasn't, and 2) that any of those claims have been "debunked", which they haven't. Do you have anything to say about either of those things? And regarding everything else you're saying, I reported you as a suspected sockpuppet because your behavior was consistent with a recurring sockpuppet user on that page, and I stand by that move. Reporting suspicious behavior does not constitute a personal attack, no matter how much you might think it does. --Drevolt (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind a good faith report. What I mind and find personal is when you go to the admins afterwards and ask “is there anything else you can do about this” after they declined the sock puppet case. And then make a point of informing every talk I am in that I am “under investigation” for being a sockpuppet. You have gone out of your way to delegitimize me. Your defamation scheme has failed. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Suspicious behavior can and should be labeled as such. Again, everything I did was in line with policy, not once did I say that you were a confirmed sockpuppet. I'm going to take your refusal to engage with the substance of my original comment as an acknowledgement that everything I said was correct. If that's the case, I'd like to ask you to withdraw this report. If not, I'm going to stop replying here and let the admins come to their own conclusions. --Drevolt (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest in the future you admit to it instead of lying about your actions. Thanks. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Update 4 August 2020: Just thought it was relevant to mention that the page has now been semi-protected as a result of persistent sockpuppet editing, and that at least one of the users whose edit I reverted has now been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. --Drevolt (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 reported by User:Lightburst (Result: No action)
Page:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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: [diff]

Comments:

I have used edit summaries to tell the editor that this is a personal attack. The editor templated me for removing the PA and continued to ad the Arshole comment. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No action. NPA says that "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack". Iridescent's comment is not aimed against a named editor and he is describing something that happened a significant number of years ago to illustrate his point of view - before going on to say why he doesn't agree with Guy's statement despite his previous comments. Black Kite (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was just working on a report on both of these users when Lightburst filed this. Both of them have been warned to stop edit warring (Lightburst's warning) and SerialNumber went as far as to violate the 3RR. If I were the acting administrator, I would take action against both of them honestly. They could have stopped reverting and discussed at anytime and both chose not to do so.  Dark knight  2149  02:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the basis that hopefully it will cease now and we'll carry on without blocking either of two users in good standing. Black Kite (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LB writes here, but when I wrote the same exact thing at ANI referring to Iri's comment, LB removed it repeatedly as a PA. Le v ! v ich 02:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as long as it's established that the phrasing stays and should not again be reverted, I'm agreeable. I'll probably make sardonic remarks on my talk regarding, though. ——  Serial  02:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Darkknight2149 is correct. I did three reverts because I do not like being called an arshole - Levivich knows what he is doing and so does Serial. And Serial did 4 reverts. I stopped at three and came here. Not sure I should catch a block for removing an obvious PA. Can I call editors arsholes? Probably not. Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Iridescent wasn't calling you an arsehole, he was recalling the historical issues of problems with ARS members on AFDs, which were probably before you started editing. Black Kite (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * not at all true. i work my tail off here creating content. this is WP:UNCIVIL and I am ashamed that this is where we are - no action? We have a case of four reverts to basically add in an asshole PA and that is ok? Strange...but ok. I will do my best to steer clear of their wake. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be an uncivil word, but Iridescent wasn't using it an uncivil manner, he was basically saying "I'm no friend of ARS ... and this is how much I wasn't back in 2009 or whenever" ... but then says he doesn't agree with the OP suggestion. I think that's OK. If he'd said "I see that ARS are still being arseholes" or something like that, you'd have been quite correct. Black Kite (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I was a kid, the way people got around being the one throwing the insult, they would say...someone said your mother is fat. in other words I did not say it. Black Kite, you are good people, and have seen you around on the project, but you are very wrong here...I will move on. I started three articles yesterday, one today, saved two others today, and this ANI kerfuffle has been a time suck - I have editing to do, and these guys are always lutrking in the drama boards. Lev and Serial work together to provoke me for a while now(maybe that is an aspersion?), and I should be smarter. I want you to remember this day, when I say something off color, and then revert it in four times. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand completely; we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No further comment: I encountered two edit conflicts (one when Lightburst filed the report and one when Black Kite posted the result) and there have been further responses. I think the situation is now being handled, so my work is done. The last thing I will say is that I would prefer if neither side spun around my diffs against the other person, because both parties are guilty of edit warring.  Dark knight  2149  02:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tedm03 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has changed the format of the article to deviate from the original format and has refused to seek consensus to change it away from that which has been consistently used for Washington election articles. Reywas92Talk 05:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Reywas92 reverted just as many times and I started the discussion to resolve the issue. You can see in the discussion and edit history how uncivil Reywas was. Tedm03 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You can see the full discussion on the matter on Talk: 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Basically, many 2020 election articles that use similar primary systems, such as 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia, use the format of more sections. The format used on previous Washington articles crams too many things into one section and buries the primary results table, especially on mobile. There are dozens of candidates in this race and it takes forever to scroll all the way to the bottom. There is a false assumption that the format is by state, but that makes no sense. They are all election articles. I will also add that there's no benefit to the system Reywas uses, it's clearly outdated. Tedm03 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Tedm03 has reverted me three times at 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia as I have restored the page to its original format, which is consistent with 2020 Georgia's 5th congressional district special election, 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2010 Georgia's 9th congressional district special election, and 2007 Georgia's 10th congressional district special election, as well as articles for Washington and California (all elections) and Hawaii (special elections) which have all candidates running in a single initial election. This user has no interest in establishing consensus to change from the established format. Tedm03 is making the same edits as (original change for format to Tedm03's preference at Georgia and Washington), along with other similar articles edited, so I am concerned about block evasion/sockpuppetry, as they jumped into editing infoboxes in election articles shortly after Smith0124 was blocked. Apparently my warning of this user is a "personal attack". Reywas92Talk 05:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Couldn't think of a decent username reported by User:HappyWaldo (Result: Partial block on both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  edit summary: "you've got not idea"
 * 2)  edit summary: ""
 * 3)  edit summary: ""
 * 4)  edit summary: ""

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "You'll be reported for continued disruptive editing and removing reliably sourced content."

Comments:

At first I thought the user was reverting my edit because it lacked a source, so I added one, but they continued reverting anyway without explanation. I've also had trouble with this user in the past, and they seem to be bored and after some kind of payback. Earlier this year they added a non-free image to a page without fair use rationale (see here), and subsequently reverted my attempts to remove it (see here and here), even though I explained in the edit summary why it had to be removed (see here). The user then left an abusive message on my talk page. Based on other recent edits where they engage in page blanking and use offensive language, I can't assume good faith and believe these reverts will continue until someone intervenes. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (well, to be precise it's a partial block). Salvio 08:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drewwesley reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."
 * 2)  "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."
 * 3)  "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparently motivated by a position of scriptural inerrancy. Similar deletions were made by IPs in the edits preceding. Numerous other editors are engaged in discussion on the talk page, but the user has ignored this and gone straight to the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is drewwesley. If you want to maintain a viewpoint that the Book of Exodus is a myth, keep that in your historicity section and leave the lead section alone. You don't determine what's fact and what's myth. I can also report you GPinkerton for reverting my edits 3 times within 24 hours and perpetuating this edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwesley (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He reverted you twice, you were reverted by two other editors after that, making that 4 reverts by you in 24 hours.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The reported user is still edit warring and has since made several more reverts. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is drewwesley. I omitted a highly-debatable statement from the lead section that's already mentioned in the historicity section. By concluding that the events recorded in the Book of Exodus are mythical, you're asserting the book is mere fiction. Why do many scholars and even atheists rely on the Bible as a reliable historical source, and what contradiction is there with archeological and anthropological findings. This is not edit warring, this is a war on the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islamism. You're using the reference of one Ivy League professor to assert that the events recorded never occurred the way they're recorded. There will always be people who dismiss the Bible as truth, and those who support it. It's not up to you to determine for the world what's fact and what's myth. Let people figure that out for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwesley (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Drewwesley made 8 reverts at Book of Exodus in less than 3 hours, without editing the talk page at all. Zerotalk 01:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is really unacceptable behavior. May I ask that something be done about it? This case has been sitting here since yesterday, Drewwesley reverted other users 8 times on a single page in three hours, hasn't shown any understanding that he's edit warred, and is likely to start doing it again soon if nothing is done.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. "This is not edit warring, this is a war on the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islamism." User:Drewwesley is advised to become familiar with Wikipedia's standards of WP:Verifiability. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:128.143.0.10 and User:2601:140:8380:db0:69c8:d2ec:39fc:f743 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 4:36, 4 August 2020‎ ("Re-adding as per logs")
 * 1) 15:40, 4 August 2020‎
 * 2) 1:32, 5 August 2020‎
 * 3) 3:53, 5 August 2020‎ (Hopped onto a different IP address for this one)
 * 4) 17:29, 5 August 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The two Virginia-based IPs (who may be the same person) are not participating on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:108.35.232.142 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has been slow edit warring on this article since May 2020. All edits effectively the same. This article constant battleground over who invented it first. Attempt at compromise on talk page. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. There seems to be long-term nationalist edit warring (going back months) as to which country originated the dish, Nicaragua or Costa Rica. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:184.103.204.14 reported by User:Whisperjanes (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added facts about this pandemic with new sources, to compare hysteria pandemic vs non-hysteria pandemic so undid political revision which should have been discussed in a page Undid revision 971425225 by Whisperjanes (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added facts about this pandemic with new sources, to compare hysteria pandemic vs non-hysteria pandemic so undid political revision 971104781 which should have been discussed in a page by Whisperjanes (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added specific sources about this pandemic, to compare hysteria pandemic vs non-hysteria pandemic so undid political revision 971103527 by Whisperjanes (talk)"
 * 4)  "Added formal references to prove that the 1957 and the 1968 flu pandemics caused more than double the amount of deaths on a global basis"
 * 5)  "Added facts about this pandemic with new sources, to compare hysteria pandemic vs non-hysteria pandemic so undid political revision 970207762 which should have been discussed by Doggo375 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on List of mass hysteria cases. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RedWarn 15)"
 * 3)   "Please self-revert your last reversion"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Comparing COVID-19 death rate to Hong Kong flu & Asian flu */ new section"

Comments:

I told the IP that their edits constituted original research, since the sources for each edit do not mention "hysteria" or "mass hysteria", and some of the writing was a synthesis of multiple sources (to imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). The IP previously violated the 3RR and did not revert their fourth reversion when asked to on their talk page. They did post on the article's talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_mass_hysteria_cases&diff=prev&oldid=971105285 ) after their fourth reversion, but did not address any editors' specific concerns, and they have not attempted to participate in a discussion of any sort (specifically, they have not replied to my attempt at discussion, and have instead reverted another of my edits, where I removed content that has been contested by various other editors in the past, but was restored through edit warring).

Different IPs have been restoring the same or similar content continuously on this page since March, despite various editors deleting the content and discussing their concerns on the talk page. The IPs have commonly called it "censorship", and this particular IP has called the deletion of their version "political revision", in their edit summaries. Whisperjanes (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected indef. The filer, User:Whisperjanes, offers a good summary of the problem. Different IPs have been making similar reverts over a long period of time. Based on the edit summaries it appears that in many cases one person is using multiple IPs. The edits which call government response to Covid an 'hysteria' seem to be POV-pushing. The page was semiprotected for a month by User:C.Fred in June. The problem resumed quickly after the semiprotection expired on 25 July. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2604:2000:6A04:0:EDFA:6E4D:DD4D:F7E0 reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 971525300 by GPinkerton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Which part of "The source used categorized this nonsense as a MYTH!" can't you understand?!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 971468455 by Aybeg (talk)"
 * 4)  "The source used categorized this nonsense as a myth"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material on Hagia Sophia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Hagia Sophia. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hagia Sophia. (TW)"
 * 4)   "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also personal attacks and blanking of Talkpage with abusive edit summaries. GPinkerton (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1) |diff

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:

The article is covered by the Syrian Civil War sanctions and therefore only 1 revert per 24H is allowed. Ibn Amr has reported me for the same at Tell Abyad, and I was blocked afterwards even after I have self reverted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First, no, the article is not covered under the Syrian civil war sanctions (1RR). Second, I have clearly and duly explained on the Talk page here, here, here and here why the content added by user Konli17 (an agressive, recently-blocked edit warrior) is POV-pushing using one obscure, unreliable propaganda source and is WP:UNDUE. Third, it's hilarious that one edit warrior (previously blocked for running sock-puppets) and recently-blocked for edit-warring is reporting me here. User PC refused to abide by previous arbitration suggestions at the DRN and NPOV noticeboard and continued to remove sourced, relevant content here from NYT and The Washington Institute. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is possibly the most aggressive anti-AANES editor on Wikipedia at the moment, whose problematic behavious stretches back years. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they hypocritically argue that Ayn Issa ought not to be covered by edit-warring sanctions but nearby Tell Abyad should, this is a typical supremacist double standard. This user's hypocrisy is on constant display, and their behaviour is manifest over a range of article. They are guilty of almost every accusation they throw at others. Konli17 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute not a edit warring.Peacetowikied (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . Confirming that the page is not (yet) covered by the GS. Konli17, please refrain from casting aspersions. This is not the noticeboard to advance that claim, anyway — but you should not make accusations of that nature without evidence to back it up in the first place. El_C 16:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I have an explanation why I was blocked by El C at Tell Abyad? At Tel Abyad there is no Syrian Civil War sanctions warning like there is in Ayn Issa now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent question, which I would also like to see answered. Amr has also evaded blocking for activity that I received a block for. Konli17 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm pretty sure, technically, it is covered by the GS. Per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL: "[A] one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed: All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) [exceptions omitted]. Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." (emphasis added). FWIW, I've added the talk page notice and editnotice, which I (think I) can do as a non-admin because it's not an imposition of a sanction, but a courtesy notification of a restriction applied to a topic. That said, fairness probably requires a warning on the pages before a block or other sanction, even if the GS does not. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't apply GS or DS sanctions without an article and its talk page having proper notices, at the very least — as well as WP:AWARE-like user talk page notices. The log indicates that Paradise Chronicle was blocked for WP:3RR, not for anything having to do with the WP:GS, but also that the block was lifted shortly there after. I don't immediately recall the details there, nor can I speak for the admin who blocked Konli17. El_C 19:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation El C. Anyway, I still encourage an admin/sysop to look into this (wider) dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Pjkd5968788 reported by User:Hipal (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:01, 5 August 2020
 * 1) 17:42, 5 August 2020
 * 2) 17:54, 5 August 2020
 * 3) 18:22, 5 August 2020
 * 4) 21:57, 5 August 2020
 * 5) 21:25, 6 August 2020
 * 6) 23:29, 6 August 2020 Made after commenting below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:37, 5 August 2020

Comments:

This WP:SPA editor has made no edits beyond those to the article. The changing references and single edit summary, Edited citations and background information. indicate Pjkd5968788 is aware of other editors' concerns about the edits. Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying to figure out how to respond back. I have done extensive research, added additional citations, and provided more context based on my findings. I am just trying to update the biography but my information keeps getting deleted rather than amended.Pjkd5968788 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:108.26.53.151 reported by User:Asukite (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Definition of racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

Having pride in ones race or ethnicity is considered racist, the description of asian pride being racist is constructive.

This is similar to white pride for there is no systematic raci..."
 * 1)  "Please explain your reasoning for taking off a constructive description of asian pride."
 * 2)  "Please explain how my earlier comments are incorrect. It is constructive to give context to a racist ideology. Please give a reason on how asian pride is not racist. Read the comments on earlier edits if asian pride for context."
 * 3)  "Please explain how this term is not racist, do not just edit out the term without explanation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RedWarn 15)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RedWarn 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is repeatedly adding contentious language to the page Asian Pride and has been reverted by multiple editors over the course of multiple days. The editor has not attempted to bring the issue to the talk page, but instead continues to re-commit the same changes, using the edit description as a forum in the process. A S U K I T E  23:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 3 months based on the history of vandalism and racist edits. only (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Creativerobot12345 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Article is under a 1-revert-restriction, editor ignored this and kept edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I requested page protection Monday, and added the Troubles restrictions template, which already applied, Wednesday evening to try and stem any chance of edit warrings. The template was in place on the talkpage when the second edit above took place. The editor is newer than I am and [[WP:AGF|may not have been aware] but he was made directly aware by [[User:FDW777]]. Arnkellow (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Creativerobot12345 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at John Hume unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. See the discussion at Talk:John Hume. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tilakny reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 6 August 2. 7 August 3. 7 August 4. 7 August

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hinduism

Comments:

Frequently edit warring, already violated WP:3RR. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Александр Мотин reported by User:Zoozaz1 (Result: Zoozaz1 blocked per ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 971535864 by Zoozaz1 (talk) the poll doesn't say that "48% disapproved of Vladimir Putin's handling of the coronavirus pandemic". See Levada's poll for more info: https://www.levada.ru/2020/04/30/pandemiya-mery-i-nerabochie-nedeli/ ;restored unexplained deletion of text about another poll"
 * 2)  "removed misinformation about "48% dissaproved Vladimir Putin's handling of the coronavirus pandemic"; restored RS since these RS are allowed according to WP:RSP"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 971394221 by Zoozaz1 (talk) added new RS; restored TASS since WP:RSP doesn't say that "TASS is not a reliable source here""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&type=revision&diff=971299845&oldid=971292736&diffmode=source 4th revert Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer Zoozazi was blocked 24 hours by User:Swarm on 6 August due to a report at ANI, due to what seems to be the same dispute. Unclear why Zoozaz1 chose to re-submit the same war here, after the previous admin action was taken. There are no new reverts so the issue is stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JrFedit reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 971826044 by Freshacconci (talk) continued removal of corrective edits and to read the comprehensive research. It should be noted also that the editor responsible has done this on lots of occasions on various posts where aspects of sexist distortion of art history have been corrected. discussions should take place on the talk page before disruptive removal of factual edits & citations"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 971822030 by Coldcreation (talk)  please read the cited article (9) before disruptively reverting edits that correct the history in line with the substantial and accepted research."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 971815671 by Freshacconci (talk)  There is now substantive research showing that F-L was the artist and I would ask that you read the comments on the talk page for this article. History is not fixed and the main points of the research are available on the jackdaw article mentioned on said page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 971749989 by Coldcreation (talk)  please stop removing edits that are correcting the sexist & now proven to be incorrect information on this post. we can discuss in talk further but the facts have been established now"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Fountain (Duchamp). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Fountain (Duchamp). (TW)"

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

Comments:

Clear violation of 3RR. Editor is insisting their version is the only correct version but fails to provide sources. At least three other editors have attempted to discuss this on the article talk page.  freshacconci  (✉) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If I am allowed to comment I would point out that I have cited the substantive research on the topic and that freshacconci has opposed other fact based edits (with citations) on other pages that I have been involved in editing, and always on the issue of female artists being removed from or not even mentioned in art they were involved in. I note that he is now trying to get me banned and constantly removing referenced articles from the page. Wiki has to reflect what the knowledge is on a subject now and in terms of this particular art work the research is extensive. None of the 3 editors involved have responded to the discussion about this on the talk page for the article actually and refuse to discuss the more recent research that has been cited. It seems they have no interest in the page being corrected when important, cross referenced and accepted research is published. There are claims that I have not referenced the added research but I have (citation 9 on the article). For ref I am an artist with an extensive track record in terms of research into female artists. I am not editing from a position of lack of knowledge but an in-depth one on the subject. User: JrFedit —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to say there is a genuine controversy here, but it is far from settled in the art world. We had a well-attended Rfc on this very point in 2018, which concluded we should use the form people are reverting to (see the talk page) . I'm not aware there has been anything much new since then, and while the wider consensus outside WP maybe on the move, it has a good way to go before we are likely to shift our position here. User: JrFedit might make a better impression if they worked out how to sign talk page posts. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: JrFedit has now reverted for a fifth time and will clearly continue to do so without waiting for a talk page consensus.  freshacconci  (✉)  14:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And a sixth time: . Note the edit summary.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

freshacconci is misrepresenting this issue. I reversed one of the edits and another was merely to clarify an earlier edit. I have attempted to discuss this topic on the talk page but as anyone can see the responses have been dismissive at best and do not show any signs that the other editors have read citation 9 (which keeps being removed). If they are not prepared to even look at all of that research then I can't see that they should be allowed to have such an influence on that or any other page. User: JrFedit —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed this user changing neutral language of sourced information to their own opinion on Fountain (Duchamp) and on Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. This is someone forcing an unsupported opinion into the encyclopedia.  As far as I'm concerned this is vandalism.  The warring noted here is no small matter.  Recommend banning user. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:শরদিন্দু ভট্টাচার্য্য reported by User:Glennznl (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I'd like to point at that this user also renamed Chittagonian language to Chittagonian dialect without any discussion and performed similar edits (language>dialect) on that page. Furthermore he cleared his talk page which contained numerous warning including a warning from User:Serial Number 54129, after which he now refers to the users he encountered (me and Chaipau) as idiots: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%81_%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%9F%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF&type=revision&diff=971833762&oldid=971825746 Glennznl (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, this user has now also removed the warning I put on his page telling him that he was reported here. It is very clear that this user is not looking for a discussion at all and simply wants to continue his agenda pushing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%81_%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%9F%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF&diff=971847703&oldid=971844787 Glennznl (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring, and calling other users 'idiots' isn't likely to help resolve disagreements. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2602:43:65E:9700:5C6B:2AA7:7D4D:3928 reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 971760920 by Tenryuu (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Development and release */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 971760920 by Tenryuu (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Development and release */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RedWarn 15)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RedWarn 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unexplained removal of content */ new section"

Comments:

Apologies if I've broken 3RR, but this IP editor is constantly removing content without discussing their reasons over at the talk page. I've left warnings on their talk page and started a discussion over on the article's talk page, but they seem to be unresponsive to those. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: They've since then. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks due to IP-hopping revert warrior from Special:Contributions/2602:43:65E:9700:0:0:0:0/64. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2a01:119f:31b:5d00:9421:ef37:6d83:a9a9 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  it's 2020 now not 2019 so the figure of stages of existance must be updated
 * 2)  Unexplained revert. The universe Big Bang happened 13800000001 years ago, not 13800000000
 * 3)  However the thing is each time a year passes the uncertainty of relative time must be shifted by 1 year
 * 4)  Vandalism

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Looking at the /64, Special:Contributions/2A01:119F:31B:5D00::/64, I find previous instances of WP:NOTHERE behaviour evidently by the same author. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 19:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:94.250.171.181 reported by User:Ezhao02 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: ·  ·  ·

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Croatian Democratic Union

Comments:

I've linked to reverts by other IP addresses that I presume are by the same person. and I have repeatedly asked this user to engage on the talk page, but the editor keeps reverting before discussion is complete and has not addressed the points we've made. I've refrained from reverting this time. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The closing admin might consider a block of Special:Contributions/94.250.160.0/19, which would cover all the IPs listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks to Special:Contributions/94.250.160.0/19 for long term edit warring. They have constantly reverted about the same thing since 26 July at Croatian Democratic Union. (View the page history and check out their repeated addition of 2,147 bytes to the article). They are insisting that certain references be cited in the infobox, while others say that those items are already cited in the article body. This editor has never used the talk page to discuss their desired change. Updated per below. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As person who reported this IP address, I'd like to correct one small part of your statement. The editor did use the talk page to discuss the desired change, but he/she did not address the issues we brought up with that change and did not respect the current consensus. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Utfrk reported by User:JavaHurricane (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 2)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 3)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 4)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 5)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 6)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 7)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 8)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 9)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 10)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 11)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 12)  "/* Concept */"
 * 13)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 14)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 15)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 1)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 2)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 3)  "/* Concept */"
 * 4)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 5)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 6)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 1)  "/* Concept */"
 * 2)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 3)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 4)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 1)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 2)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"
 * 3)  "/* Underlying concept of spirit */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned by Acroterion at 00:29 UTC today about the 3RR. User is persistently adding questionable content.  Java Hurricane  06:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:5.43.102.127 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 972022489 by Special:Contributions/82.79.62.216 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 972007534 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 972000233 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "I was not part of the consensus mentioned.
 * 1)  "I was not part of the consensus mentioned.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* BMW */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* BMW */ final warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP keeps removing the BMW logo claiming "they weren't part of the consensus", Having told them "not being a part of the consensus" is not a reason to continue reverting they've still continued to revert, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI to save people looking - the consensus for not including the new BMW logo is at Talk:BMW, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added 4th diff as they're still at it. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help EdJohnston, Greatly appreciated, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like block evasion from, same edit with the same summary and a similar editing area. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Toasted Meter, Clearly the same guy - Reported at SPI. Deceitful behaviour such as that does on belong anywhere on this project. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cordyceps-Zombie reported by User:NedFausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

's edit summary says it all: "I can do this all day if I have to." NedFausa (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * also President of Belarus, Flag of Belarus and Alexander Lukashenko

He said also on his talk page "Don’t tell me what to do", "That red rag is not the flag of Belarus - that is a FACT !!!", "If you block me, there will be a hundred more ready to take my place" Braganza (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Now he's removing the flag from House of Representatives of Belarus, National Assembly of Belarus, and Council of the Republic of Belarus. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not a case for "Edit warring" but for Administrator intervention against vandalism Braganza (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Very disappointing result. If I did anything half as disruptive, I'd be blocked indefinitely—and rightly so! NedFausa (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie. See also the warning left by Ohnoitsjamie on the blocked user's talk page. That ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:212.15.177.12 reported by User:Ezhao02 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsourced changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I believe this is the same user who was involved here. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Wait and see if this continues. So far it is only a single edit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PrincessConsuelaBH reported by User:JCBird1012 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:04, 6 August 2020
 * 2) 22:29, 8 August 2020‎
 * 3) 22:01, 9 August 2020
 * 4) 04:26, 10 August 2020‎
 * 5) 15:42, 10 August 2020‎   — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBird1012 (talk • contribs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:Whisperjanes notified the user of their problematic edits on their talk page show in this diff. I notified the user of potential edit warring on 9 August 2020 shown in this diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A section exists for this very topic on the article's talk page but the offending user has made no effort to attempt to justify their edits under that section nor have they provided descriptive edit summaries for their changes - reasoning for reverting this user's original edits were given via a edit summary (see this diff) and multiple users have reverted these edits from User:PrincessConsuelaBH on this article so far (showing that there's at least a small consensus amongst other editors active on this article)

Comments:

User has been notified on their talk page that they have been reported for edit warring. JCBird1012 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:U1Quattro reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Second generation (2015–present) */Your next revert would see you there, idiot"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 972141814 by Davey2010 (talk) Then replace it with a better one instead of mulling about it."
 * 3)  "/* Second generation (2015–present) */Replace poor image."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is repeatedly edit warring over the image and has also resorted to childish personal attacks, I've told U1 in edit summaries and on their talkpage to go to the talkpage but instead they keep reverting, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is much more concerning than a 3RR. This extremely combative user is currently engaged in several edit wars and has introduced numerous errors at Hino Ranger. The user also absolutely refuses to own their mistakes and, in so many words, says that if they offend anyone then stay out of their way "or they will bite."  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - User has since started an RFC on the talkpage, They really should've been blocked the moment this was reported because either way it was blatant edit warring,
 * Honestly makes me feel like why do I bother ?, Why don't I just continue in the back and fourth edit warring until we both get bored as either way it won't make a blind bit of difference. (Ie they still won't be blocked for it) - The exact same happened with another user whom I reported - They were warned and then a year later warned again ..... just makes me feel like why the hell do I bother coming here anymore if nothing's ever done about it. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:ThePersecuted (Result: User promised to stop)


Pages: (some examples, there are plenty more) User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Breda Babošek, Madman at War, Maung Rajan, So Kam Tong, Liu Liming

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Breda Babošek: ,
 * 2) Madman at War: ,
 * 3) Maung Rajan: ,
 * 4) So Kam Tong: ,
 * 5) Liu Liming: ,

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

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

Comments:

User:Lugnuts is arbitrarily updating the &#123;&#123;Use dmy dates&#125;&#125; with a newer date. There is no reason for this and it simply bloats their edit counts and creates confusion. User has been asked several times to stop doing this & they continue, in addition to reverting to the point of edit warring when people revert their edits & ask them to stop, ,. I have linked above several times of them disregarding reverts & comments on their talk page, but I've personally experienced at least 25 different articles this occurring on. ThePersecuted (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe ThePersecuted could explain why they needed to follow my edits and make reverts on each and every one of them? As I've already explained, I check everything on my watchlist for vandalism, including running an update to unify any date formats in a given article. Infact Template:Use dmy dates states that it's fine to do this - "Use the parameter |date= for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article..."  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Lugnuts was blocked by Materialscientist. Then they were unblocked after they promised to stop making cosmetic edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tilakny reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Hinduism
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Blocked for 48 hours
 * 1)
 * 2)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I issued the user's previous block on 7 August regarding the same article, Hinduism. After attempting to explain our policies I do not perceive that the message is getting through. It appears that it's time for a longer block. He is quite friendly and agreeable, he just keeps on reverting as though nothing had happened. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * They removed the Vedanta-diffs diff; I've seen quite a number of disruptive editors over the years, but this is exceptional. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just now the reported editor, Tilakny, edited this report to remove others' comments. I'm considering an indefinite block. He means well, he just doesn't seem to understand anything anyone says to him about his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi I was just trying to remove the vedanta page edits as we clarified that in a talk page and it was not edit warring, so I don't understand why I'm getting banned for that I even explained why I did it when I removed it, Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fourth revert for Vexanta. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – Five days. Continued warring on the topic of Hinduism after a previous block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Александр Мотин reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: User will refrain)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 972464151 by Nightvour (talk) WP:ANECDOTE?? It is a sweeping claim since it is well sourced. added RS. Shortened text. Also this Putin's claim tells about temporary side effects for human health after vaccination."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 972393187 by Bradv (talk) you are mistaken. Just open PDF in line 7 → Instruction for use. It says exactly what I wrote."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 972346212 by Zefr (talk) +RS"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 972345570 by Zefr (talk) official statement from Kremlin.ru with a transcript"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ANI thread.

Comments:
 * Boomerang WP:ADMINSHOPPING — Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors; 4. Does not engage in consensus building) --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Diff #1 seemed to me as obvious vandalism. WP:VANDAL: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content (...) without any regard to the core content policies (...) is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents diffs #3 and #4 seem to be vandalism reverting as well.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If, even after reading WP:NOTVAND, you are doubling down in calling those edits vandalism, then evidently we have a deeper problem here than just some edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that this WP:ADMINSHOPPING by aims to drive away productive contributors which is a clear WP:DISRUPTSIGN. I think that Boomerang for him is the best decision here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make an accusation of WP:ADMINSHOPPING it will need to be backed with diffs. I have raised a query about you at no other board. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No block, since the user has agreed not to edit the Gam-COVID-Vac for a week, or to edit on the topic of the Russian vaccine anywhere else in article space. Can still use talk pages. This avoids a block for the 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Grufo reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Page protected; User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 4 reverts are whether an tag is justified on a piece of text that has been accused of being original research. 1 revert is a more substantial content revert.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:49, August 9, 2020. A revert of this
 * 2) 20:31, August 9, 2020. A revert of this
 * 3) 02:14, August 10, 2020. A revert of this.
 * 4) 02:30, August 10, 2020. A revert of this.
 * 5) 03:26, August 10, 2020. A revert of this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Grufo was warned against edit warring on July 27. During the edit war above, Grufo warns others against edit-warring and tells them about 3RR. Clearly Grufo knows about our policy. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law and Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law.

Comments: When Grufo inserted original research into the article, I started a discussion to point it out (Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law). I let the material stay, but added an tag until discussion was resolved. Grufo found that tag unacceptable and has edit-warred to have it removed while discussion is ongoing. Grufo is also subject to a complaint at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where three users (including me) have found their behavior to be problematic. Grufo has been warned by an admin not to make personal attacks against me.VR talk 13:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this can be worthy of attention. -- M h hossein   talk 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit war is still going on. VR talk 01:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has been protected.VR talk 02:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor is very quick to attack other users of vandalism, being socks and POV pushing to buttress his edits which have no consensus. He has previously been warned to keep civil  and avoid casting aspirations and avoid OR as well. He does not really listen and we usually have to start over on every article page. He frequently informs users of his personal anti-religious slant. Nothing wrong with that but he seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder regarding this issue and seems to believe it makes him more NPOV than other editors. He also claims he has the power to protect article pages by himself. Does he? 39.37.128.59 (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected four days by User:Oshwah. In addition, User:Grufo is warned they are risking a block if they continue to remove the template when protection expires. Grufo should wait for a talk page consensus to clear him from the original research complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:81.110.154.20 reported by User:WhoAteMyButter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Blackpool Illuminations. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Blackpool Illuminations. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Blackpool Illuminations. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Blackpool Illuminations. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Blackpool Illuminations. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Given multiple warnings about not adhering to NPOV, keeps adding it back in. WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 09:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 09:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:BunterImaliar reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 3)  "/* Career */ Asylum Law and UK obligations."
 * 4)  "/* Career */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I and User:Viewmont Viking have tried to engage with this user, but not succeeded. I do not believe the user is here to help build the encyclopedia. Tacyarg (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This report crossed with User:Ymblanter's post on the user's page; I am happy to leave it at that and cancel this request for administrator intervention. Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * By now this report is and, anyway, the user has been warned. Should he start again, please re-report him, so that he can be blocked for violating BLP. Thanks.  Salvio 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:1.136.104.19 reported by User:AussieWikiDan (Result: Withdrawn)
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:
 * Misunderstood that it is broken on the fourth revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieWikiDan (talk • contribs) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Fogoros09 reported by User:JavaHurricane (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have filed for a dispute resolution. Please maintain neutrality and revert from slander until this may take place."
 * 2)  "Yes there are sources, but look into what they are saying? An op-ed from a disgruntled employee and a testimony regarding an allegation? And we are going to consider these things fact?"
 * 3)  "While we wait consensus, a non-biased version should be posted. Not one with false accusations listed as fact."
 * 4)  "Replaced with copyright violation box intact. No copyright violations exist on page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 972939475 by JavaHurricane (talk)"
 * 6)  "Correct context"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 972934598 by Jacona (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 972933530 by Jacona (talk)"
 * 9)  "copyright violation"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 972914986 by Jacona (talk)"
 * 11)  "Providing appropriate history and reference to controversy"
 * 12)  "Provided reference and commentary to appropriately address both sides of a controversial issue ."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 972775818 by Jacona (talk) due to vandalism"
 * 14)  "Corrected inaccuracies."
 * 15)  "Corrected false accusations."
 * 16)  "Update"
 * 17)  "Removed Inaccurate section"
 * 18)  "Update"
 * 1)  "Update"
 * 2)  "Removed Inaccurate section"
 * 3)  "Update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3 — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning against 3RR has been issued (and ignored) by user. This user is attempting to remove some information on the page and has started dispute resolution but is well out of 3RR territory and seems to show some WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in reverting to their preferred version in spite of requests that the clean (pre-dispute) version should ideally be kept.  Java Hurricane  16:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally user inserted a copyvio, removed a copyvio revdel template twice and slapped a user with a 3RR notice without any apparent cause as far as I can tell.  Java Hurricane  16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a new editor and was unaware of the 3RR. It has been respected now as I have filed for dispute resolution through appropriate channels. Apologies for inconvenience, just trying to remove slander from a page. Fogoros09 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * has continued edit warring has continued after post the above comment. See Special:diff/972989268. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am just trying to have the page non-biased while we wait on a dispute resolution. Why should the status-quo in the meantime contain derogatory comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogoros09 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please help, as I am being targeted by a group who wants to defame a school, by using different user names to continually remove appropriate edits. Fogoros09 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've partial blocked Fogoros09 from this article for 72 hours. Continued edit warring following both 3RR warning, a dispute resolution request, and this report. On a examination I believe there's is the potential of promotional effort being done here as well. The article may need a revert to last stable, but I leave that to others. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Abbyjjjj96 (Result: User will refrain)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff 00:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) and Diff 00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Diff 01:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Diff 02:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Diff 02:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't know I was meant to warn them before they violated 3RR. Now they have already done so? I did leave edit summaries and a removing content/templates warning on their talk page (see below).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My first reversion of their reversion included an edit summary saying posts need to be signed Diff 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC). My second reversion of their reversion Diff 02:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) linked to WP:SIG. I left a removing content/templates warning on their talk page with a note which they removed without response Diff 02:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) before continuing to revert.

Comments:

I added two unsigned templates to two unsigned comments by Sundayclose, but they removed them. Per above, I reincluded them and told the user that posts need to be signed, but they kept reverting without providing an explanation and violated 3RR. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No block since User:Sundayclose has agreed to take a break from the article and its talk page for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Alfredthegreatenglandforever reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor is a SPA who ignores the agreed consensus at WP:DERRY despite being informed of it and the 1RR restriction. FDW777 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Alfredthegreatenglandforever is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again about the naming of Derry. They have now received all the required notices and the DERRY template has been placed on the talk page of Colum Eastwood. Their user name, when combined with their immediate foray into nationalist editing, might suggest bad faith but I hope that is not the case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:168.235.134.215 reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's an ongoing discussion, they've been directed there and made no attempt at contributing to the discussion

Bacondrum (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:27.68.172.146 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Salvio 21:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:86.174.124.67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"
 * 2)  "No as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"
 * 3)  "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V-pop&action=history"
 * 4)  "No as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"
 * 5)  "No as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"
 * 6)  "No as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"
 * 7)  "Edit is accordance with  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Lists. Also please see Talk page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * As already advised to User: M.Bitton I'm reverting vandalism, and this has been discussed on both the articles talk page and Requests for page protection. Note, User: M.Bitton did not respond to my message noting my correction of vandalism.


 * Salvio 21:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unblocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.67 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well. Salvio 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've unblocked the user given the condition that the edit warring doesn't continue. He/she agreed, and I was satisfied that it very likely won't.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Adhurim Jakupi reported by User:Aleksamil (Result: Already 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:

This user is edit warring over the infoboxes in the articles Battle of Košare and Battle of Paštrik. In particular, he's broken the 3RR in the second article concerning whether the Kumanovo Agreement was a result of the battle and the number of casualties. He's also reverting every edit to the result of the other battle, as well as the participating units (which I have edited) and refuses to respond in Talk.--Aleksamil (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * by —Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 01:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikimaster2107 reported by User:LukeEmily (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: The user deletes scholarly citations because he does not like them


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:5E0:25C0:D581:72C9:2355:DD4C reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result:Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 15)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RW 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Dynamic IP in the 2600:1700:5E0:25C0:: range. Raymie (t • c) 18:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Impossible to figure out what the IP's point is, and they have never posted on Talk. The simplest way to deal with this might be semiprotection of the main station, KEUS-LD and of their sister station, KANG-LD. The IP's /64 range is Special:Contributions/2600:1700:5E0:25C0::/64. I am not certain yet if there is reason to block the /64 for disruption. Their edits don't look to be straight vandalism, but they are all over the place with no obvious rationale. Their latest IP has been notified of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , first by for 2 days and now by me for 1 week as the disruption continued after the tag was removed. I'll leave the possibility of blocking the range to a sysop with more experience handling IP ranges. signed,Rosguill talk 00:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Statik N reported by User:ILIL (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: Genre warrior will not stop restoring claims that fail verification. Refuses to use talk page and keeps reverting edits by other users. Doesn't even bother removing the two-year-old cite needed tags from older revisions. ili (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kanenums reported by User:MattBinYYC (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kanenums&diff=prev&oldid=973367463

Comments:


 * What are you reporting? If any of those diffs are reversions, it's not apparently obvious. Nor are there any signs of an edit war, just you repeatedly deleting content without any explanation or communication, which is not only biting a newcomer, but a form of disruptive editing. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you look at his talk page, he's literally like "I don't even care if I get banned" also, he's vandalizing by adding this over and over. I'm sorry that I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know how to properly file these reports. I have been reverting manually because it's the only thing I know how to do. --MattBinYYC (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/973562244

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

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

Diffs of the Rosguill's reverts: And where he first had a problem with including her citizenship in the description:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)

Comments:

Edit warring in response to the addition of an undue weight tag. I tried to explain the issue on the talk page and was met first with stonewalling, then with some rather absurd accusations of having bitten a third party and engaged in personal attacks against the editor. signed,Rosguill talk 23:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * had been asked to back off on the newbie WP:BITE who had just refreshed (created) the article. And he also made the statement he edits based on a 'practice he's adopted', not necessarily policy, so his edits may be POV and over the top IMHO. He also inferred that all his issues related to 'prim sources', so in that case extra tags were not required on the page, just the one tag I left there - so I considered both his concerns addresses by the one tag - so issue addressed. In fact he went searching for other tags he could attribute for the page in his opinion, after he got the first tag completely wrong (tag bombing?). Also he got insulty to me here and here. He can discuss his concerns on talk without bringing the newbie down by over-tagging the article. CatCafe (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also edit-warring takes two, with the other party being Rosguill, so if I'm in the wrong a WP:boomerang for Rosguill may be in order. CatCafe (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment about adopted practices is in reference to Talk:Yasmine_Mohammed, where I was explaining my rationale for an edit to the article's summary. signed,Rosguill talk 00:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill admits he edits, and in this case edit-wars, based on a 'practice he's adopted'. If he does this is in some instances, it does not ensure trust for, and puts a black cloud over all his other editing instances. CatCafe (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . CatCafe brought up that a block should be two-sided, so I will address this. It takes two to edit war, and I will generally avoid blocking before I issue a one-sided block. However CatCafe violated 3RR, and Rosguill did not. 3RR is intended to be a "bright line", in which a block is all but automatic. Also, while it takes two to edit war, context matters. If one party is clearly engaged in disruptive editing and the other is doing nothing wrong, this further justifies a one-sided block. CatCafe is clearly the disruptive party here. Arguing over the need for a tag is valid, however, removing a tag that has not been resolved is inappropriate, per WP:WNTRMT. Looking at Talk:Yasmine Mohammed, I can clearly see that Rosguill had explained the reason for the tag, articulating two seperate issues in their initial comment. Bizarrely, CatCafe essentially ignored everything Rosguill was saying about the undue weight, and repeatedly brought up a misinterpreted, unrelated issue about how the article needed more primary sources. Now an honest misunderstanding I can forgive, however, by the time Rosguill clarified that there were two seperate tags for two seperate issues, CatCafe had already violated 3RR over the tag, before they even understood Rosguill's argument. Not good, but then when Rosguill clarified that he was making two distinct arguments, Cat seemingly ignored this as well, simply saying that his "opinion was not supported" (whatever that means) and that "your tag needs to be removed" while it gets discussed (which is not how things work). The exchange really is concerning, with Rosguill simply articulating a routine concern and Cat appearing unwilling or unable to engage in reasonable, good faith communication. I appreciate Cat's concern for WP:BITE. It's an important principle that goes ignored far too often. However this was not even a new user. Even if they were, adding a maintenance tag with a civil explanation is not "biting". In their drive to defend an editor from being "bitten", Cat disrupted an article and created a hostile atmosphere for a user who did not do anything wrong. Really poor display on the part of CatCafe here, even if they were trying to do the right thing. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Nightside reported by User:DanielRigal (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "to correct Daniel Rigel again"
 * 2)  "to fix a misleading revert by Daniel Rigel"
 * 3)  "correcting Daniel Rigal's misleading posts."
 * 4)  "Too many people today do not understand the meaning of the work "inflation." They have changed their definition of the word to fit their political needs. The word inflation is defined as: an increase in the amount of money and credit in the economy. If you wish to change this article, please do proper research, you may be perpetuating a falsehood in the economy and causing harm."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Inflation. (TW)"
 * 2)   "advice"
 * 3)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Inflation. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Inflation. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Inflation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * This was posted just after I made this report as I realised that they continued reverting as I was writing it.
 * Also, this discussion on my User Talk page

Comments:

This user is repeatedly trying to change the introduction to this article to conflate Inflation with Monetary Inflation, which is clearly their preferred economic theory. This is very much non-neutral and makes for an introduction that contradicts the content in the body of the article. They refuse to discuss it or even to acknowledge that there are a multiplicity of views of inflation which we have to ballance. I have attempted discussion on their User Talk page and mine and encouraged them to use the article's Talk page. Nothing does any good. They are convinced that they are correct. They just remove the warnings from their User Talk page. Their edit summaries also border on personal attacks. I was just about to start a discussion on the article's talk page when I saw that they had reverted yet again so I am bringing it here instead. Given how hard they are pushing their preferred POV, and not listening to advice, this may well be a WP:NOTHERE issue. DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to : User:DanielRigal This user is continually reverting my edits in a topic in which he admits he does not know. After offering him clear advice, definitions, resources and sound logic, he refuses to do proper research before editing my changes. If wikipedia is to grow in accuracy you must stop people like DanieRigel from creating drawbridges that prevent advancement of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Nightside: I took a look at your edits, and at the least, you are not following the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I've reverted your edits. You need to get consensus for your changes, since they have been opposed by other editor(s). If you're knowledgeable in the topic, you should be able to provide reliable sources at Talk:Inflation to get other editors to support your change. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (Edit clash) I have made no such admission as Nightside alleges. I have been upfront that I am not an economist but that is all. I am aware that there are multiple views of inflation and that the definition given in the introduction to article prior to Nightside's edits defined it correctly (with references) and set up the article to discuss the various views of the topic in a way that the reader can understand. Nightside insists on bypassing all that and simply asserting their own preferred opinions (without references) as if they were plain facts. All I have been doing is reverting this back to the established correct introduction, which I did not write myself, and encouraging Nightside to discuss it. This is not about me. This is Nightside edit warring against the consensus version of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you're correct, edit warring is still disruptive. The reviewing admin will, however, note that both of you were edit warring. —Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , lots of disruptive behavior coming from this user. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:UsaforPennies reported by User:Therapyisgood (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for previous edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Has been rehashed countless times at talk page, see FAQ 1 and FAQ 4 at Talk:George Floyd, here, etc.

Comments:


 * Persistent edit warring on George Floyd. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Salvio 20:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Arglebargle79 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: Indefinite 1RR per WP:AC/DS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Talk page discussion: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Original warning: User talk:Arglebargle79

Original AN3 case: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410

Discussion of prior violation of AN3 decision: User talk:Arglebargle79

Comments:

This user was previously taken to AN3 for edit-warring over Biden's photo which resulted in them being told to refrain from changing the photo without a clear consensus. Despite this, on June 25, they again edit-warred over the picture. The admin responding to the initial report,, decided to give them another chance. They are now edit-warring over the photo again without discussing it on a talk page. They also appear to be engaging in generally disruptive editing at 2020 Democratic National Convention, which has noted on their talk page:  —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 18:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dare I state it. I can no longer keep up with the lad's editing spree. He's basically taking over the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a clear consensus. There was a discussion on the talk page. We voted to change the picture to the one which it is now. All was fine and dandy until @Tartan357, decided to step in and, I guess to tick me off, and ONLY to tick me off, to change the picture from the one I was using and had been using for almost two months, to that ugly one which, BTW was never agreed to by anyone. What Tartin did was vandalism and he's trying to have me punished for HIS. NOt Cool. IT was HE who was edit warring, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * just attempted to remove 's comment from this discussion. That is absolutely unacceptable. I've restored it. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 19:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. That was a mistake and I apologize.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

is disruptive editor. Advised to change user name of


 * User indefinitely restricted. Salvio 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drevolt reported by User:XXeducationexpertXX (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:


 * Persistent edit warring on Columbia University. User has now consistently removed content from Columbia University page that is cited with reputed sources. User may have POV issue with Columbia University. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * XXeducationexpertXX: Funny, I was just in the middle of reporting you here. I’ll just go ahead and roll that report into this post for the admins’ convenience.
 * First, at least three editors have reverted your disruptive edits on the Columbia University page over an extended period of time, myself being one of them. All three of us are users with an extended history of editing articles on higher education.
 * Second, two reverts of your disruptive edits on my part does not constitute edit warring. This would be true even if your edits weren’t a blatant violation of the higher education consensus on NPOV, which they are. You’ve been repeatedly asked by multiple editors to discuss on the talk page, and you haven’t.
 * Third, you’ve repeatedly reverted my edits on my own talk page despite being warned that this violates Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Fourth, as far as I can tell, this is all part of a much broader pattern of disruptive editing on your part. You’ve been repeatedly warned by many different users about both your POV edits on the Columbia article and apparent vandalism on other university articles. Seems to me like you’re not here to build an encyclopedia at all. —Drevolt (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer to this AN thread for further discussion. Ed  talk!  00:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

user:Jon698 reported by User:38.111.214.86 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I've corrected the user link in the header and informed the IP of how broken this report is. Meters (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Found the edit war. IP is trying to remove content sourced to Fox News because of their personal view that it should not be used as a source. However, we had a recent RfC on this, which determined that, apart from the areas of politics and science, Fox News is a generally reliable source. Page protected to prevent continued disruption from the (dynamic) IP. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Gabibb2 reported by User:HalJor (Result: Partial block)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master/slave_(BDSM)&type=revision&diff=973502569&oldid=945043644&diffmode=source
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_BDSM&type=revision&diff=973507664&oldid=971122602&diffmode=source

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master/slave_(BDSM)&diff=next&oldid=973619053&diffmode=source
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master/slave_(BDSM)&diff=next&oldid=973810218&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master/slave_(BDSM)&diff=next&oldid=973881986&diffmode=source
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_BDSM&diff=next&oldid=973618962&diffmode=source
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_BDSM&diff=next&oldid=973810328&diffmode=source
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_BDSM&diff=next&oldid=973881945&diffmode=source

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors have asked in edit summaries, but none have opened active discussion on the article pages. Instead, through the user's Talk page at

Comments:

Both lead images have the exact same context: a person on a leash during some BDSM event. The only difference is the nudity.

Wikipedia is NOT censored. However, according to MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE, "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred".

"Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia"... But that's not the case here, it is possible to use a lead image without perceived shock value. Both lead images bring the same information to the readers, the only difference is the nudity. There's no reason to remove the new lead image unless you're putting your personal preferences above Wikipedia's guidelines.

CurvedSpace was annoyed that I changed a photo that he likes. But he can't ignore Wikipedia's guidelines just because he likes the old lead image more. This is an attitude of bad faith. gabibb2  ✉  21:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 22:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1004:B01F:DDEA:5CE7:23FA:1643:D433 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 973888379 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 973888141 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 973887630 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 973887319 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 973887169 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 973887053 by Rockstone35 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 973886313 by Mvcg66b3r (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Removal of content, blanking (RW 15)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RW 15)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on WDAF-TV. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final Warning: Vandalism (RW 15)"
 * 5)   "Reverting edit(s) by 2600:1004:B01F:DDEA:5CE7:23FA:1643:D433 (talk) to rev. 973886590 by Mvcg66b3r: Vandalism (RW 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I don't think this is necessary anymore given that the user was blocked for vandalism/blanking by --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 22:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:197.89.19.112 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked)
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:

Note also we have [], same material different IP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP is already involved in a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which is a continuation of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * People are blanking reliably sourced information with no explanation. Both person who reported this plus User:Bondegezou(sp.?) are clearly part of a clique with User:DonQuixote. This is clearly not about edit warring. It's about a small group of persistent people trying to erase reliably sourced information from Wikipedia, simply because they don't like what it says. Period. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP editor previously banned for disruptive editing at [] is now back with the same edits and now in clear violation of WP:3RR. Bondegezou (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The four diffs supplied at the head of this report show the IP hopping from the Special:Contributions/197.89.19.0/24 range to make these reverts. The same person (from a different 197.* IP) was blocked by User:Girth Summit for a week per the 6 August ANI for personal attacks, so I recommend two weeks or more this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – Rangeblocked 2 weeks for disruptive editing. Edit warring using an IP hopping from a range, to impose a fringe theory in Doctor Who articles. Continuation of the problem first reported at ANI in Archive1043. The IP continues to make personal attacks regarding other editors' motivations, as at this new ANI from 18th August where he charges others with vandalism and meatpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:200.127.69.36 reported by User:TJRC (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warning on Martha Argerich after multiple warnings, and taunting about it on Talk:Martha Argerich. For some reason Twinkle's not seeing all the reverts and warnings, but they're there. TJRC (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverts:, , , , , ,.
 * Warnings:,.
 * Resolution attempt: Talk:Martha Argerich.
 * TJRC (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP seems stable enough, so I have blocked even if they haven't edited a few hours. Salvio 09:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User:73.144.116.111 reported by User:WhoAteMyButter (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 973935897 by Rhain (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 973935931 by 73.144.116.111 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 973935997 by 73.144.116.111 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 973936011 by 73.144.116.111 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 973907318 by Rhain (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 973935756 by WhoAteMyButter (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 973912698 by Rhain (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 973907318 by Rhain (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 973907318 by Rhain (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on John Marston (Red Dead). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on John Marston (Red Dead). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * , your advice in Special:Diff/973936780 applies to you too. If the issue persists, please report it without edit warring yourself. I'd almost say you're lucky not to have received an answer to this report yet; an earlier answer by a different administrator could well have included a block.
 * , since further disruption is else to be expected tomorrow per the edit summary of Special:Diff/973936993. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Lizzydarcy2008 reported by User:CherryPie94 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) This is a fantasy adn we'
 * 2)  Stop bashing me and this drama. You're the one making disruptive edits. This is a fantasy drama and you're talking of historical inaccuracy?
 * 1)  Stop bashing me and this drama. You're the one making disruptive edits. This is a fantasy drama and you're talking of historical inaccuracy?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) See WP:CSECTION
 * 2)  stop causing disruptive edits and being stubborn. Read WP:CSECTION. You can’t make up your own guidelines and rules here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) but I suggest seeing the full discussion Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch
 * 2) A long argumentum ad nauseam here Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch.

Comments:

This editor is a fan of the series who has been causing disruptive edits and edit warring for weeks now. They have been edit warring on May on the same page and warned by another editor but they still keep revert changes for no reason. I already filed a dispute resolution days ago, but still no one volunteered and I’m tired of this user reverting good changes that follow the guidelines for no reason and always claiming we are bashing the series. This is becoming a case of Advocacy or conflict of interest. CherryPie94 &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC) User:CherryPie94 thinks only fans can see how negative this page is. Compare it to pages of other kdramas - Crash Landing On You, It's Okay To Not Be Okay, Backstreet Rookie, Mr. Sunshine, etc. They are not half as negative as this. Those who see this injustice only want this page to be FAIR. It is already unfair and she still wants to make it even less so by highlighting another stone detractors have been throwing at this FANTASY drama - that it is historically inaccurate. She wants to rename a section of the page of a FANTASY drama from "Controversy" to "Historical Inaccuracies..." I have already noted my reason for reverting her change yet she still keeps on reverting my changes. She keeps on calling me an obsessed fan but it's looking like she is an obsessed detractor. I am not the only editor whose attempts to keep this page FAIR she has reverted. She is also using dirty tricks to keep me from making more edits. She has filed a dispute resolution request yet keeps making changes that make this page even more negative. She has reported me for sock-puppetry. And now this. The 3-revert rule is not even applicable since I did not make the reverts within a 24-hour period. Yet she jumped at my third revert which makes me suspect she was trying to trap me into violating the 3-revert rule. For more information, please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_King:_Eternal_Monarch Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * To the admin reading this: This is not to report 3-revert rule, this is to report edit warring due to Advocacy. Also, I just want to say that since filing the dispute resolution, I have not touched the main sentence of the dispute (like the user claims on top), I worked with another user adding source and completing the original soundtrack and cast section instead. Now while trying to make the page neutral as possible and after reading WP:CSECTION (Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident"), I tried changing the section title from "Controversy" to "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warnings", but this user keep reverting it for no reason, and they did not even try to changing the title if they have an issue with the use of "Historical inaccuracy". This is a clear case of Advocacy and I really don't know what to do. CherryPie94  &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , you made changes a few hours before submitting the dispute. Very tricky. Please remove your detractor hat and compare this page with those of other kdramas, e.g. Crash Landing On You, Mr. Sunshine, It's Okay To Not Be Okay, etc. Those who are seeing how negative this page is just want it to be FAIR. "Historical inaccuracy" is biased. It is one of the incongruous charges detractors of this FANTASY drama have been throwing at it, and now you're making it the title of a section. It is a FANTASY drama, so historical inaccuracy is obviously nitpicking and you want Wikipedia to be party to it? These allegations of historical inaccuracies are already detailed in the section, yet you still want them to be highlighted in the title? As I noted in my summary response to your dispute resolution notice, this page is looking like Wikipedia just cannot help taunting this drama.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If WP:Reliable Sources are generally more negative about this particular TV series, then there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. If you think that there's a Point of View issue here, then please bear in mind that the POF tag at the top was added because you were removing negative comments, not the other way round. However, I think we'd rather you didn't edit-war over your preferred revision of the page, which violates WP:CSECTION for no good reason (as far as I can see).  06:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This page is currently negative because we are repeating negative points about the drama. I am not suggesting we remove the negative points. I am suggesting we avoid repeating them. In some cases, we are mentioning them three times. I have been removing the repetitions. The duplicate remarks I am removing are already covered in their respective sections. The ratings are already in the Ratings section. Why repeat them in the Reception section? Other kdramas don't mention them outside the Ratings section. The production costs are already mentioned in the Production section and at the right side of the page. Please see the pages of other kdramas like Arthdal Chronicles and It's Okay To Not Be Okay. They are not half as negative as this page. Arthdal Chronicles incurred higher production costs. Do you see mention of those production costs in the second paragraph of the page? No, because they are already mentioned at the right side of the page. For The King Eternal Monarch, the production costs are mentioned three times in the page. It's Okay To Not Be Okay has lower ratings than this drama. Do you see those ratings mentioned outside the Ratings section in that drama's page? No. Do you know how many times the ratings are mentioned for The King Eternal Monarch? Three times. This repetition not only makes the page negative, it also makes it sloppy. Kdramas with second paragraphs list their achievements in this paragraph, yet we are repeating negative remarks that are already mentioned in other parts of the page in the second paragraph of this kdrama. My suggested text for the second paragraph follows the form of the second paragraphs of other kdramas - just a listing of their achievement in a straightforward manner. Please see Crash Landing On You and Mr. Sunshine. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/973902186

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

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

Comments:

Continuation of behavior previously reported here (Diff of the close in case it gets archived ), CatCafe is now insisting on adding a claim that does not exist in the cited source, a hypothetical claim that I invented to provide a hypothetical example of when it might be appropriate to cite an opinion piece, claiming that I agreed to this despite having done no such thing. Mind, this all occurred after I had already objected to the use of the source in question on the grounds that the author has a conflict of interest with the subject .signed,Rosguill talk 22:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Rosguill suggested taking any issues to WP:DRN, so it's heavy handed bringing it here. I suggest he takes it to WP:DRN if he has problems. It is disappointing that Rosguill uses WP:PLAYPOLICY overly - I am not up to speed on every angle of every policy -but I usually try to use my little knowledge of policy to add to an article not detract. I introduced the sentence "Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in Canadian discourse" as I felt the source says that after she spoke in Canadian Parl House - It was based on a previous suggestion by Rosguill (so I thought) - and asked him to modify the sentence if he felt it was inaccurate. Now he's reporting me for that? I am trying to retain secondary sources as per the 'prim source' tag requires - that is the main aim of editing the page at present. I have tried to introduce content and sources inline with the rules Rosguill keeps on finding - but he is not willing to work with others constructively in trying to retain secondary sources. He option is now being provocative calling me "daft". Considering that should I just give up? CatCafe (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , subsequently unblocked with conditions, including to move on from the article. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:209.151.250.145 reported by User:Οἶδα (Result: Blocked 1 month)
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 is already involved in a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents##Legal threat for making a legal threat in their edit summary. Οἶδα (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:90.154.71.115 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is also a sockpuppet and should be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks JBL (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Joel, for the warning. The warring is a result of some deep emotional troubles some stupid fellows are experiencing. I feel sorry for them for they must be either hospitalized or, at least, prevented from destructive editing. Any way, all their actions must be recorded for competent people to eventually evaluate. 90.154.71.115 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78/Archive - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Contra10 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I suppose Alan Dershowitz also supports white suppremacist causes."
 * 2)  "See talk page"
 * 3)  "Outright support of "white supremecist" causes is not verified and the story in question is already featured in "life and career""

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Neutrality */  No."
 * 2)   "/* Neutrality */  Irrelivant."

Comments:

This and a SPA are repeatedly removing sourced, unflattering content about a performer who is popular in the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:223.191.53.27 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Licence to Kill. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same user who keeps edit warring instead of discussing on the talk page. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion/sock puppet/meat puppet:. DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:GrammarDamner reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Each of the reverts adds 3 sources to the lead along with the following sentence "However, it allows men to have sex/marry with female slaves and captives of war without any regard to their consent."

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:13, August 20, 2020
 * 2) 20:55, August 20, 2020
 * 3) 16:04, August 21, 2020
 * 4) 16:58, August 21, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. However, this warning was given after the 4th revert. GrammarDamner has been editing wikipedia since January 2019.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:0eaceful has also violated 3rr on the article and warned. I am also requesting page protection for that article - once again. I request 1) an admin warning both users against edit-warring and 2) protecting the page. I don't think a block is necessary. From past experience, people don't stop edit-warring until they are specifically told to stop by an admin.VR talk 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this constitutes edit warring. I have not violated 3rr, making only 2 reverts per day. Furthermore, I have used the talk page to discuss the issues, and I wasn't planning on making any more edits. The situation appeared to be resolved. Vice regent posted a 3rr template (which, frankly, was a little patronising) on my talk page 40 minutes after my last edit to Rape in Islamic law and started this almost one hour after. I think this whole thing is Vice regent trying to stir something up when, again, I thought the issue was basically resolved. GrammarDamner   how are things?  18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify something. While I had made more than 3 edits within a 24-hour period, they were not simple reverts. The edits were different, reflecting the issues that had been discussed on the article's talk page. The language used in the sources was brought up in discussion, and my edits reflected the necessary changes. GrammarDamner   how are things?  18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Each one of your edits cited above restores the exact three same sources and the same sentence (with a slight modification). The dispute is not resolved. I think admin warning (not block) and page protection will allow this to be resolved via discussion not reverting.VR talk 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No issue with the sources had been brought up on the talk page, only the language used. I addressed that. And again, I had backed away. I think you jumped the gun with this unnecessary report. GrammarDamner   how are things?  18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're constantly restoring the near-exact same edits made by a banned user (not the first time) with a few tweaks (one word changed), without seeking consensus. The claim on the talkpage that you had taken our "valid points" into account is simply not true considering you used the exact same sources that had been criticized as not supporting the statement. Ignoring the issue while trying to be polite isn't resolving anything. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What were the issues with the sources? I'm sorry if I missed it, I thought the sources were fine, but issues with what they actually said had been pointed out. I addressed those issues. If you and Vice regent want to keep mentioning a banned user, then perhaps I should point out the the changes you two make are very consistent with another banned user, User:Arsi786. GrammarDamner   how are things?  18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Arsi involved here and are we reverting to his edits? The issues can be discussed on the talkpage as long as you don't jump the gun. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GrammarDamner should be aware that their four edits that are listed at the head of this report are within a 24-hour period, so they break 3RR. They might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if they will agree not to edit the article for a week. Per WP:EW, a revert is anything that undoes other editors' actions, either in whole or in part. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I agree. I believe that the second two edits had addressed all the concerns that had been brought to the talk page, and to be perfectly honest, I would appreciate it if User:EdJohnston and/or any other admin would take a closer look at the behavior of some of the other editors involved. But I guess at this point I simply have to move on. GrammarDamner   how are things?  20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and the article is already protected for a week so no one can edit it. I would prefer if GrammarDamner agrees to always follow WP:BRD (even after the article is unblocked). This means if GrammarDamner's edit is reverted they shouldn't revert back until they have discussed the material in detail on the talk page.VR talk 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree to follow BRD. I feel that I did follow BRD. 2 issues were brought to the talk page, I addressed both of those issues, and then I put the information in the article. However, I will go even further and ask to see if consensus agrees with a new proposed edit before adding it, unless consensus says that the first edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. GrammarDamner   how are things?  20:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! I agree to withdraw this report.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Complaint withdrawn by the submitter, per the assurances made in this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Александр Мотин (Result:Warning)
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:

According to the block log of this user, a long-term blocking may be required.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My edits speak for themselves. is perpetuating unverifiable Russian sources and propaganda, which I have replaced with WP:RS sources (article history). No other editors are disputing my edits. Zefr (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * His block log speaks for itself. In the articles Morinda citrifolia and Phyllanthus he probably also opposed the "Russian propaganda" and... was blocked for edit warring.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe previous blocks should be admissible here. For comments and edits like these, you should use a reliable source. If one cannot be found, the information does not belong on such a current topic like a potential COVID vaccine (regardless of its effectiveness.) <span style="color:#ffb300;text-shadow:1px 1px 6px rgba(255,153,0,0.6)">WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 03:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be objective, the non-MEDRS sources were used for non-medical claims, and 4 reverts did happen. It is another matter that the content inserted by Мотин and removed by Zefr (like here) was included without consensus or approval by any other contributors on the page. This complaint also looks like "gaming the rules" by Мотин. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For the moment, the edit war seems to have temporarily stopped, so let me try this, from my perspective, you are both edit warring. I could block both of you, but I hope this can be resolved in an adult manner. Please, take your disagreement to the talk page and try to find consensus on a possible wording. If you can't reach a compromise, you can try other forms of dispute resolution. Is that an acceptable way forward for both?  Salvio 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ANI request (11/08/2020): When he or someone reports then there is only one guilty party (me) and when I report – "you are both edit warring" and "this complaint also looks like "gaming the rules"? Interesting... --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, dispute resolution is a good idea but this does not cancel the violation by Zefr. Especially here, at least, opinions were expressed indicating signs of disruptive editing from his side.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, Александр, speaking as someone totally uninvolved, my impression is that the two of you are in the middle of a content dispute and are basically talking at each other by now. That is why I suggested DR. Discuss the issue on the talk page and, if that doesn't work, involve other people, either through WP:DRN or an WP:RFC. That, in my view, is the proper way forward. In addition to that, blocks are not meant to be retributive, they are not punitive, but rather preventative. So, if disruption has stopped, a block is no longer necessary or appropriate. In this case, I hope that the situation can be solved without resorting to the use of my tools. Salvio 10:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right, and 3RR rule is intended for this case. When they filed a 3RR request against me, this was interpreted as a violation despite the fact that I deleted openly boorish attacks against the President of one of the countries of the world (Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac). UPD: I got it mixed up with this: Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac. But a "Guinea pig" case is also very revealing. They demand strong MEDRS for Putin's qoute and just simply put qoutes into the article about "foolish Russian Government", "Guinea pig" and "I feel shame for our country" without MEDRS. Is it normal? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a content dispute. I am not saying that either of you are right or wrong on the merits, I haven't familiarised myself with the underlying topic enough to form a well-thought-out opinion. However, none of the edits (yours or his) appear problematic enough to constitute exceptions to edit warring. Salvio 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about the edit warring, but I'm not convinced this is a situation that can be resolved "like adults". This is apparently an intractable dispute between these two editors that was previously at AN/I. It was most recently resolved by Александр Мотин taking a break from the article, but now his break is up and the conflict has resumed. Zefr seems to have a fervent, passionate belief that this vaccine is not scientifically valid, to the degree that Wikipedia should suppress any notion of even discussing it as a real vaccine. This had led to edit warring, personal attacks, stonewalling innocent edits mentioning the vaccine, and an obsession with calling everything propaganda. I have previously tried to reason with him at AN/I and he was so fixated on his views that he came across as completely impossible to reason with, and I was inclined to block him for his behavior. Александр Мотин, the article's creator, is hardly innocent either, having posted dubious claims sourced to the Russian government without including the widespread disputations from the scientific community and edit warring. Both users have called for the block of the other. At this point, I don't even think a block would be useful, we're probably in DS territory. I think the obvious solution is a TBAN of both users from the subject of this vaccine. At the very least, a 1RR page restriction. ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up. You seem to be much more familiar with this situation than I am, so I will defer to your judgment, but, yes, in the light of the pattern you describe, topic banning both under the Covid-19 GS may be appropriate. Do you know if they were made aware of the sanctions? Salvio 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh, probably not. I didn't recall awareness criteria applying to general sanctions. ~Swarm~  {sting} 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, GS are basically the same thing as DS, the only difference is that they are authorised by the community rather than ArbCom and, so, an alert is required, prior to the imposition of any sanction. The template is: . Salvio 13:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just warned both users. Александр, however, seems to be aware of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE and, so, can already be sanctioned under those. Salvio 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Looks like there is no currently active edit war at this time, so going to close this with a warning. Both and  are warned that there will be no more tolerance for disruption in an article which is protected by both Arbcom-imposed and community-imposed discretionary sanctions. This includes, but is not limited to, personal attacks, aspersions, edit warring, addition of unsourced content, contentious removal of sourced content without a policy justification, or baiting the other party into committing an offense. If we see any more disruptive behavior, both parties will be subject to editing restrictions and/or topic banning without further warning.  ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Virs1 reported by User:Asterix757 (Result: Indef)
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:

There where two messages (from user:Materialscientist and then me) on the talk page of the User:Virs1 because of his massive removal of reliable sources, but he doesn't care, and is not open to discuss, then pretends to me :" Stop you appear to be a troll! Stop this religious harassment !" Asterix757 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then in his response to the An3-notice he calls me a "harraser" . Asterix757 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , obvious POV-pusher ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon additional examination of the user's contributions,  ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:24.29.56.240 reported by User:NZFC (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 974295777 by NZFC (talk) NZFC, I posted on the talk page, but I am reinstating my edits because I believe they are correct. Drop the attitude and stop making threats. You don't get to decide what belongs on this page and what doesn't and then threaten to block editors that disagree."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 973957656 by Armadillopteryx (talk) remove material that is not important or encyclopedic and is very awkwardly worded"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 973968686 by NZFC (talk) remove unencyclopedic quote that adds nothing to the encyclopedia"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 973968686 by NZFC (talk) remove unencyclopedic quote that adds nothing to the encyclopedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mike Patton. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * 331dot (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Davidt1996 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked 1 day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is engaging in 3RR by removing speedy delete notices repeatedly. ~ Amkgp 💬  18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 11pm here so if issues with page recreation and CSD aren't resolved by morning will address as well. Glen (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Springs24 reported by User:Namiba (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * It should be noted that the editor, User:Springs24, vandalized my talk page after I left notice of this discussion using a sock puppet account (which appears in the signature of the comment below.)--User:Namiba 20:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

NO reliability in complaint (Springs25i (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC))
 * I do not have a second account, the “Springs25I” is just a crazy coincidence, I swear. I do not know and am not Springs25I. I think it’s a troll or something. Springs24 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, the Spring25i account does not appear to be a sock. Anyway, Spring24 has been  Salvio 20:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Voteins (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) removing joebaugher conflation... Lockheed had been making tricycle fighters since 1939. Bell's XP-59 was a high mid-wing. The P-80 wing was all Kelly Johnson's laminar flow work, a 13% thick NACA 65-213.
 * 2) Rv... Giant problems with these edits. See Talk.
 * 3) (reporter's note: also posted on my user page warning me of edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Please do not remove sections of an article without providing alternate sources of your own.
 * 2)  I replied to your comment on the talk page. Do not revert this edit, and please review Wikipedia's  Three revert rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) but I made a few revisions to it immediately after so see Talk:Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star
 * 2) Note that the user did not respond to my talk page post before their second and third reverts

Comments:

This editor appears to have taken grave offense to one of my sources (their comment on the talk page post they made after their first revert was "not Baugher again"), accusing me of repeating a false claim that Bell's XP-59B influenced Lockheed's P-80 fighter aircraft. I have replied to them on the talk page stating that I relied on multiple sources for this section of the article, and even provided more in my post. I also checked the only one of the sources they provided I was able to find online, which did not deny the claim and even confirmed a section of my edits this editor saw fit to remove.

I then asked them to provide more explicit sources for the claim that the XP-59B had no influence on the P-80. Instead this editor has chosen to revert my edits within minutes of me making them, asserting unspecified "problems". I'm more than willing to examine sources, compare their credibility, and find consensus on the talk page but continually reverting my edits without justification is simply unproductive. Voteins (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 20:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with this issue. If I could just ask one thing, the latest version of the page was a revert by the user I reported for the 3rr, and now that version is protected. Seeing as this was essentially what this user wanted, to prevent my edits from showing up, I'd ask the page be left with my edits intact. Voteins (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's right, the WRONGVERSION was kept. Actually, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to add or retain disputed text. The article is appropriately protected in the state it was before you brought disputed ideas. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When protecting a page, admins can either protect it as they find it, unless that version contains policy-violating content (which wasn't the case here) or revert to the stable version of the article. In this case, either choice would have led to the same result... Salvio 20:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Worth a shot at least. Binksternet I'm working to your reply to your post on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Hangsun.577 reported by User:Struthious Bandersnatch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 08:17, 22 August 2020‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:48, 22 August 2020‎
 * 2) 20:06, 22 August 2020‎
 * 3) 20:08, 22 August 2020
 * 4) 20:25, 22 August 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 22 August 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing RfC on talk page which User:Hangsun.577 was informed of via reverting edit comments and on their user talk page.

Comments:


 * User:Hangsun.577 has edit warred in an attempt to insert the appellation "Marxist-trained" into the first sentence of the BLP Patrisse Cullors. An active RfC on the article's talk page is discussing this term, which the user was informed about, and they were also warned about NPOV policy, disruptive editing, and edit warring, but they persisted in reverting to reinstate the content they'd added. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 23:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And now the same person seems to have created a WP:SOCK Hangsun.576 (talk · contribs · logs) to deliver a message to my talk page about this noticeboard discussion, though only after hitting the wrong target first. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 10:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's not a sock; the account is probably operated by the same person who created the account above.  Salvio 10:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and violating BLP Salvio 10:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ankhi88 reported by User:GSS (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring, constantly added primary sources to a controversial article and not willing to read the guidelines they were pointed to. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The protection log for this article is very long. The party reported above is a new account that has only been here two weeks, and may not yet be familiar with our sourcing standards. I would consider WP:ECP which could be imposed under WP:ARBIPA if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean looking at the content, the user is trying to discuss on the talk page, and OP here is stonewalling their edits. They're somewhat dubiously claiming that a book is not a reliable source without an explanation, and also claiming that it is a primary source, which doesn't even appear to be true. I don't see them making any case to support these claims, but when another user suggest they take it to RSN, they refused, falsely claiming that they had already refuted the source, even though I can't even figure out what their objection to the source is. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not stonewalling their edits nor I'm dubiously claiming anything. Books published by involved parties and organizations are always primary and we can't use them for controversial articles such as this one. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure if you saw my comment on the talk page regarding the book "Reduced to Ashes", the book is a collection of account from the involved people and survivors so it could only be used as a source if that survivor's quote is needed not for facts or claims. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The book contains witness testimony, it is not only a collection of witness testimony. The authors themselves are not primary sources and record their own claims, interpretations, and conclusions in the book. It is, by definition, a secondary source, with the exception of the primary sources recorded within it, and even still, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources to begin with. If a primary source is being used to cite a contentious fact, that's a minor fix, just a few extra words to attribute the claim to the source. You don't edit war and stonewall good faith edits. Also, it's absolutely dubious to claim that it's unreliable, you have not substantiated your claim that the organization is biased, and you refuse to make such a case in order to seek a consensus at RSN. You can't just unilaterally declare sources to be unreliable, and you should know this by now. So, yes, from an uninvolved perspective, you're hardly innocent. ~Swarm~  {sting} 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an involved party but noticed this discussion, and would like to throw in my two cents. This M.O. is sort of typical of GSS at this point. He reverts edits quickly, then projects onto his opponent what he is doing (edit warring) and often subsequently calls for bans and article locks, but getting him to address counterpoints is impossible; he calls for discussion then barely participates in good-faith discussion, and never further substantiates claims. It's all one big stalling strategy.
 * The same thing happened during the editing process at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, where in the face of overwhelming consensus (four editors in support of changes, plus a reasonable admin helping out), he has singlehandedly managed to stall the process for four months now (since April). (The admin helping with the process,, appears to be on a sort of hiatus, so we informally sort of agreed to hold off on edits, until he returns and can continue his help.) So yes, stonewalling is essentially all GSS does.
 * Dragging people to this very noticeboard instead of engaging in discussion is also another strategy to bypass said discussion by trying to get people banned instead on having to collaborate with them. An instance of GSS doing the same thing with another user (and it nearly backfiring then as well). if you would like to chime in here regarding that....
 * Another quick note is that both the JSB and Blue Star articles make extensive use of actual primary sources on the government side, which GSS doesn't have a problem with, so "primary" has nothing to do with any of this, this is all just WP:IDLI. Sapedder (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go so you are finally here. FYI the edits I and Abecedare reverted on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had multiple issues and you and others were explained by both of us (see the talk page). <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to see me? :) Let's get one thing straight, Abecedare held all the constructive discourse, was civil throughout, and helped enormously to improve the edits, you just tried to retroactively justify your reversions by parroting what he said. You made no salient points of your own, so don't claim joint credit for his hard work. You contributed nothing of value before he started to help. Again, leave the evaluation of sources to those who have a clue what they're talking about. Sapedder (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes happy but not surprised ;)
 * Ankhi88 reverted again despite they were warned and asked not to edit war . <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to your reason to revert his edits (that you don't like his source), as others have said, you cannot make this declaration unilaterally, and so far three editors disagree with your characterization of the source. So your grounds to revert are as of yet baseless. You should focus on the removal of the actual primary sources in the article with the POV you like and which you are ignoring, if you have integrity and actually care about this issue. Sapedder (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder, you need to stop personal attacks on me as you did at Talk:Operation Blue Star. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't mischaracterize things further, they simply recall past tactics. Immediately accusing others of having "undisclosed interests," being part of some conspiracy, and other wild statements are recurring themes with you and contravene WP:AGF. Sapedder (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Got pinged. On the specific issue at hand, I do not think I have anything to add beyond what user has stated above in their posts. I hesitate to say much more but sigh ... it is unfortunate to see GSS again running to this board, acting all-innocent and trying to paint a lopsided/conspiratorial view of the actual dispute. Has happened before and here we are again. They seem to have a prolific contribution record to Wikipedia but surely that does not give them a license to engage in such tactics. It is rather fortunate that user Swarm took the time to dissect the dispute here but what if that was not the case and a new user like Ankhi88 just gets bulldozed over. JoyceGW1 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Gunner555 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 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:

Comments:

I am not involved in the edit warring and have not entered into the discussion, but Gunner555 has reverted this article 5 times!! The last time being a recent addition by user:Qahramani44. A look at Gunner555's talk page would indicate I have warned them 2 previous times, once for edit warring and once for personal attacks. Given the 80+ edits made by Gunner555 and their continued disruptive behavior, I do not believe this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the approach by Kansas Bear on Edit War and Reverting. Any ill-intentioned person can revert or re-revert someone's edits. I am being against those who disrespect adding alternative thoughts and resources to articles. There is not such requirement that Sources MUST BE from Britannica or Cambridge or Harvard. This view is totally absurd. Disregard towards other authors must be stopped! There is attack by "more experienced/rated users" on less known ones and am being one of the latter Gunner555 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're adding a book written by a guy with no notability or even credentials . Who is this "Sanan Azer", what degree does he have in history, are his claims being supported by any other historian or encyclopedia? If you're going to completely disregard the concept of reliable sources and insert random fringe claims with no evidence backing them then of course you'll get reverted. Unless of course you think some random turk on the street is as significant as Harvard or Cambridge University, after all you've already claimed those institutions are "bought off by Persians". -- Qahramani44 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Admins, please note user:Gunner555A has placed an Edit warring notice on my talk page. I have not edited or edit warred on Samanid Empire, nor anywhere else. Clearly this is a sockpuppet of user:Gunner555. This is unacceptable behavior and further illustrates user:Gunner555's inability to work with other editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're using an unreliable (garbadge) nationalist source and you don't want your edits to be reverted? And now you created a sock (Gunner555A) to warn Kansas Bear? I'm proposing an indeff block for this destruptive user. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That user wasn't a sock of Gunner555; it's a long-term abuser who makes accounts that look like socks of users being reported here. only (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sock belongs to Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. Salvio 20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User:172.115.39.173 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)
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: Already-existing section discussing this specific issue

Comments:

Based on his or her edit summary ("Why? Thought this was a settled matter. Deleting flagship reference, which is subjective, apparently controversial, unhelpful, boastful. The UC itself doesn't recognize a flagship campus."), he or she is clearly aware of the history of this specific topic in this article. He or she also appears to have used a different IP address to make one of these edits. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 02:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)