Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive415

User:Sajaypal007 reported by User:LukeEmily (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

'''He keeps deleting academic content - including quotes and references (books/journals). He needs to get consensus to delete such high quality references. The quotes accurately reflect what is on the page. There is no WP:OR ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @HebaAisha I already reverted both of these and gave reason of reversion on both of them This user User:LukeEmily reverted back this edit is what I reverted again please see the earlier revert where I gave specific reason for the removal and he reverted back. Before removal I tried to build consensus on talk page but this user didnt engage on the talk page. He kept on adding content. Even after removal she reverted back. He has done heavy editing on that page and most of the article added are not related to the subject but only has running reference about it. It was pretty one side view which he kept on adding with such sources. I also asked him about work which really address the subject. But he did not participate in the talk page. I also tagged the top mods twice regarding the matter but they didnt reply yet. There is one more user HebaAisha and both of them working together for this. I myself was about to file complaint against LukeEmily but she did it first. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sajaypal007 is interested in particularly glorification of Rajput community hence in an edit dispute with us.I recommend protection of Rajput article to have administrator consent required for edits.I have just moved image to gallery section and not done heavy edits as he is saying.Another editor has done sourced changes which are from publisher like oxford press etc.This user don't like whts written as it is like degradation of a community for him.WP:Uncensored should be seen before complaining.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * second accusing us of working together is like personal attack.It is possible that two users like same topic and area so they can exchange thought.see WP:No personal attackHeba Aisha (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Sajaypal007 has created similar chaos on various Rajput related pages . which can be seen from his talk page msg and contributions.Not assuming good faith and adding personal opinion always.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its 11:31 p.m in India i need a sleep.Good night everyone.🙏Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 is promoting the Rajput caste all over wikipedia. He does not have the right to delete academic references without discussion. I told him many times that wikipedia is not a place for caste promotion. So just because some source mentions something unpleasant does not mean it can be deleted. I have been attacked by other Rajput editors too - calling me Rabid dog etc. My fault has been adding academic high quality sources that they do not like.LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier in talk page both of these user are working together and I didnt even tagged this user and he is here. In fact if someone can look their history they will know how both of them operating. They were also discussing about exchanging emails. If I bring some user here by messaging to accuse LukeEmily will it make any difference. You guys are accusing me of glorofication of castes that can be considered personal attack as well. Admins will themselves see what is going on. I myself am asking for admin intervention since a couple of days. I am not interested in any glorification. I already asked you to stop accusing without any basis. I can accuse you of sockpuppetry too by looking over both of these accounts. As i explained earlier I gave sufficient explanation for removal just see the edit history. I am saying this for 2nd or 3rd time these are not rajput history its history of rajasthan which I was a student and know about. Anyone can see my contributions, for an outsider rajasthan history may look like Rajput history but there is a lot of difference. I suggest you read something about rajasthan history. I never created any chaos. And if controversial topic I already tried to build consensus first but you guys didnt participate and LukeEmily went on adding without hearing on talk page. @LukeEmily please read Rajasthan history you may say its Rajput caste glorification. I am improving rajasthan history articles not rajput caste. I removed the citation and gave the reasons probably you didnt read them and reverted back. Again accusing me of caste promotion. Please I again request you guys to maintain civility. I am not talking about whether its unpleasant or not. You probably didnt read talk page thats why you are saying such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal007, admins have intervened and two who were attacking me were blocked indefinitely and one was blocked for 3 days. My study/interest is in varna mobility and Rajput caste is a big subtopic- I will be editing other pages too - not just Rajput. I am not interested in Rajasthan or wars and Rajput historic figures. I discussed everything with you multiple times on talk page. Just see the Rajput talk page and search for my name. Deleting sources that someone adds - especially if they are scholarly is like throwing away their hard work. You should have discussed on talk page waited for feedback from me and senior editors like Sitush and then we could have edited more. But you simply deleted sources - all academic. There sources are not only WP:RS but top quality. I check your history too. That does not mean I am working with you. LukeEmily (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As admins will see i only edited twice after so much talking on talk page, you made a series of changes and when asked about in talk page you ignored it. As for what that guy called you, I have my sympathies. But both you and HebaAisha are issuing various warnings and lodging complaints here. I am alone but I stand by what I did, both of you are trying to hound me when I edited with giving proper reason, it looks like you guys dont want any opposition to your views and for 2 edits you created so much chaos everywhere. You should have built consensus over edits but you repeatedly ignored. Now both of you guys are here too to try to get me banned so you can do whatever you feels. Thats not correct approach. I request admins to look at the talk page of the Rajput page and also its edit history before coming to any judgement. PS: Both of these accounts are fairly new like 1-2 months old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not discussed here at all yet. See Talk:Rajput. In any case, the sources are academic and accurate. And the bottom line is that you deleted academic references. Your edits clearly show that.LukeEmily (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ok....i m new but abide by policy of wikipedia and none of them say that new ppl can't edit😁Heba Aisha (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And you are requesting on talk page of Utcursch the indian admin to revert back the article so that Shudra origin get abolished along with high quality sources and WP:puffery prevail which told about origin of Rajputs from sacrificial fire pit.plz.....they are myth there is consensus among historians that they are a heterogeneous group and contain Shudra too.An uninvolved foreign admin should see into the matter as we can't rely solely on indians given their preferred choice related to caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ur proper reason should be supported by proper source too. NOT ur personal feeling and ideas.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is WP:Primary but this is not the only thing from where origin section is derived but Sajaypal007 u should have idea that primary sources could be used with caution supported by other sources and it was fairly used in origin section.but u reverted it as u don't liked it.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And just a small doubt?...why all ur edits are related to Rajput caste related topic only.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The page 449 contain the quote that he removed.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Article is in edit dispute and a removed quote?


 * These both guys have edited that article heavily but when I reverted just two edits with proper reason given not personal opinion (as one of them said), anyone can see that both of these guys engaged me on multiple fronts issuing warnings for block even though they didnt discuss the same in talk page but I did in vain. They trying to cow me down so they can edit with their one sided view. The line I removed or words added were according to their own sources. But they didnt like it one user reverted back my edits and other tried to warn me for block when what they should be doing was to discuss it on talk page like I trued to do. I requested admin helps many times too, and I requested admins to not just revert but after reverting discuss all these on talk page so edits can be made with consensus. This user @HebaAisha asked me like 7-8 times why is your edit history full of rajput related pages and honestly speaking I am fed up with replying to her, I told her multiple times that this I edit topics related to Rajasthan(geographical) reason history not Rajput(caste) related issues if I was interested in rajput caste i would have edited other articles but as you can see in my edit history its mostly related to history and that too mostly rajasthan history. That user is probably not from rajasthan hence a genuine mistake made by many when they think rajasthani history is full of rajput history. But he kept on asking even though I replied multiple times. When I reply he doesnt say anything but another forum or talk he again raise the same thing. Please whomsoever will review please look into the matter and also see both of these users one of whom @AishaSheba keep on appearing at multiple front wherever I am discussing anything even though nobody tags her. It looks like wikibullying against me by warning me by these user to get me blocked or opening multiple fronts to engage me on so I give up on that page. This whole thing is taking so much of my time which can be better utilised as improving wikipedia. I request both of these users too that please keep the discussion at a single talk page of the article. Don't engage me at multiple places. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins, please look at Sanjaypal007's edits yourself. He has deleted academic references that he found were "unpleasant".In this single edit itself he removes three scholarly references that he felt were not flattery. This is waste of hard work and is taking immense time. People who are promoting their caste should not be allowed to edit them. His pattern is across multiple Rajput pages - not just the main one. I have only expanded the article to present a neutral viewpoint that I have read - but he deleted anything he did not like. LukeEmily (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied to every accusation of yours many times and once again I state this that I didnt remove those because of flattery or its unpleasant nature. I gave specific reason for their removal and while reverting those you didnt addressed the points which you raised and neither did you engage in talk page at that time. I can't write everything multiple times. I don't have so much free to argue here and there. I think admins will look for who was the aggressor you, me or anyone else. We have presented our cases. Now lets wait for admins before making this thread unnecessarily longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment -, you reported only 2 reverts in 24 hours. WP:3RR sanctions apply only if more than 3 reverts are made in 24 hours. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. It is perfectly normal to revert an edit and discuss it on the talk page or to wait for you to discuss it on the talk page. If the issues cannot be settled with discussion, you may seek WP:Dispute resolution methods. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sajaypal007...Its like we are defending caste system on wikipedia also.While for lower caste the term like "low origin", "untouchables" can be used.We are not in favour of using them for castes whose members are very active on wikipedia and it amounts to derogation of the caste as Kautilya3 has said on Rajput talk page.By doing this we're giving excuses to other editors to doubt our intention and our neutrality. I have seen heavy edits on caste like Yadav Kushwaha》 and more recently on Pasi (Caste).It is natural that after being inspired by the glorification attempt at pages like Rajput they will also try to glorify their own caste and we will end up fighting vandalism only.There is no caste derogation as Kautilya3 is saying on Rajput caste talk page as LukeEmily didn't removed the sources that claim their Brahmin and Kshatriya connection.This article has now become Wp:Pov aligned.It was violation of the same policy before as whole origin section was dominated by mythical origin like they have emerged from sacrificial fire pit and last one line talked about peasant origin but we can see that a lot of intellectual talk about peasant and low origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * admins have left matter to us to decide.See their edit at Rajput talk page.They have also warned that those who involve in edit wars will be blocked and they ""can't decide on content dispute""Heba Aisha (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not wikibullying as wherever i appeared you were discussing about Rajput pGe only and as i m involved it became necessary.Also Kautilya3 is also here and there though no one tagged him.We are just putting our sides.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think @Kautilya3 can help us settle the issue at talk page of Rajput. Lets discuss there about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tjbakerscala reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision. As of current, there are 10 teams contracted for entry in F1 seasons from 2021 to 2025. There is always a possibility that a team can terminate their participation in the F1 championship, but if we were to omit teams from the entry list based upon this logic, no teams would be on the list until the eve of the 2022 season testing. Until such a point as a team’s entry status changes, these 10 teams are on the list. Selectively omitting three teams (Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision. As per f1.com, the recently signed Concorde Agreement contracts all current 10 f1 teams from 2021-2025. This is the contract for 2022. Also from the article: "With the 10 teams signed up for the next five years, and the regulations and cost cap defined, Formula 1 can finally embark on a new era." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"
 * 3)  "Undid last revision. 10 teams are confirmed until 2025. From f1.com "By signing the [Concorde Agreement], each team commits to that period [2021-2025], giving stability to those running the world championship, but also the teams, their staff and their partners."https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"
 * 1)  "Undid revision. As per f1.com, the recently signed Concorde Agreement contracts all current 10 f1 teams from 2021-2025. This is the contract for 2022. Also from the article: "With the 10 teams signed up for the next five years, and the regulations and cost cap defined, Formula 1 can finally embark on a new era." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"
 * 2)  "Undid last revision. 10 teams are confirmed until 2025. From f1.com "By signing the [Concorde Agreement], each team commits to that period [2021-2025], giving stability to those running the world championship, but also the teams, their staff and their partners."https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Formula One World Championship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship, although they kept reverting after starting this discussion

Comments:

Also one more revert just over 24 hours before the first one Joseph2302 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: They appear, based on diff to be also socking as, who continiued the edit war. In the first diff they claim to be , but I dont take that. Presumably, based on that they are WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I hae started a sock puppet investation on that here. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * appears to be the earlier revert that Joseph2302 referred to.Tvx1 09:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should he start reverting again without having achieved consensus, please re-report either here or on my talk page. Salvio 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that a peculiarly light approach. The actions of this user are highly dispurptive (I mean, the used a sock puppet to try to game the system). Moreover their, through sock puppet, followed hours after their . That doesn't really show an intent to try achieve a consensus through discussion first.Tvx1 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the sock belongs to an LTA, not to this user (check out the SPI). Salvio 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User:66.176.254.245 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is trying to add a specific but non-notable church to the article. Numerous warning unheeded, may need a short break from editing to have an opportunity to see how to edit. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Marebear567 reported by User:SuperGoose007 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is putting in a controversial statement about the subject and is backing it up with a unreliable source. Goose ( Talk! ) 22:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours for this edit that was made after the 3RR warning and is not included above. Given the edits at User talk:Nkon21, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not contained to the article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User:109.92.11.101 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Page protected)
Page: The Black Book of Communism

User being reported: User:109.92.11.101

Previous version reverted to: There has been a lot of edit warring on this page by ip above. This is the diff before they began

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Black Book of Communism

Comments:


 * by  Salvio 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Data L!nk reported by User:Iangcarroll (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=974219436&oldid=970642074

Diffs of the user's reverts: (others on page history, not sure what to include)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=970501265&oldid=970496413
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=970496333&oldid=970419041
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=970418967&oldid=970329791
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=970505771&oldid=970501404

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AData_L%21nk&type=revision&diff=974903841&oldid=970526678

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

Comments:

User:Data L!nk disagrees with new journalism about the article's subject. We engaged in an edit war about it (regrettably on my part), for which we were both banned from editing the page for two weeks, and in the interim we achieved consensus in the talk page that the material should be added. The user has now reverted the material again after our bans expired. I do not want to engage in another edit war, but it's taking quite a lot of work to defend against what seems to be a sockpuppet account. Iangcarroll (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:93.136.83.115 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 974907379 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 974895795 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
 * 3)  "He declared himself a Croat, look page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danijel_Suba%C5%A1i%C4%87"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 974841954 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 974830217 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Hi! Please resolve this edit war. In Danijel Subašić page [] he declared himself a Croat on article page whith sources, they want to be a Serb by force and put him  that he is a Serb in this article. Thanks93.136.83.115 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=970791972&oldid=970790893 ""
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=974655020&oldid=974527940 ""
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=966729491&oldid=966729069 ""
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=958407893&oldid=958405559 ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=974908236&oldid=972033964 ""
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=971714325&oldid=971665981 ""
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=971573439&oldid=971527359 ""
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=967214607&oldid=945151490 ""
 * . You are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at (edits from May and July, really?)... Please, try WP:DR.  Salvio 19:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User: HistoryofIran reported by User:Gunner555 (Result: Stale)
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: [link]

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

Comments:

Please be informed that this user has reverted my rightful addition in the Origin section. I added source/book as per Wikipedia guides. Book published and catalogued in Google Books. This alternative view on Samanid family origin was attacked by multiple pro-persian users. Wikipedia welcomes alternative views in texts. My addition was by an author originally from Iran who knows the country history from inside. Hence, his research must be respected. However, some users seem to be "jealous" and "irritated". My comments and additions are treated "nationalist rant" but in fact the responses are pure nationalist comments to my views. Furthermore, user Historyofiran has reverted my added section under Gaznavids https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghaznavids&oldid=974565915. User Wario-Man using his privileges takes side and further deletes my section in that Talk. Kindly take necessary measures against this biased actions. Gunner555 (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and probably a little retaliatory as well, in the light of your own block for edit warring. My advice, is to follow WP:DR to solve this content dispute; however, be aware that you must be ready to accept that consensus may be against you. Finally, a word of advice: make you appear tendentious. I suggest you focus on the issue at hand, instead of soapboxing.  Salvio 09:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:-Wiki Kudit 2020- reported by User:Yaratmayıcı (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 975029914 by Medelam (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 975029839 by Medelam (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 975029741 by Medelam (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I am not sure what is going on there; is there some context I'm missing? For the moment, I have imposed a short block, but I'm ready to bump it up to indefinite, if there's something more. Salvio 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: and now, he's been globally locked. Salvio 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Evrik reported by User:68.231.135.128 (Result: Declined)
I would like to report the User Evrik as violating Wikipedia Policy. The article is on Eugene Scalia and is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia and talk page found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugene_Scalia. There is a very lengthy explanation on the talk page on why the sentence clearly violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View and Verifiability policies. I have twice filed a dispute resolution for the content. An independent reviewer named Deb agreed that the sentence as written violated the Wikipedia Policy.

I formally file a grievance against the user Evrik. The user continuously places his political opinion from a biased website as an objective truth in Wikipedia's voice. Please review the talk page and let him know that it is not acceptable to repeatedly ignore Wikipedia Policy. Thanks.
 * I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. Evrik, from what I can see, has not edit warred and discussion on the talk page is one of the appropriate ways of solving a content dispute. Also, please note that administrators do not generally rule on content, but only on behaviour. In this case, please follow WP:DR. Salvio 09:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:DrKay reported by User:Calton (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:40, August 26, 2020‎
 * 2) 06:48, August 26, 2020‎
 * 3) 06:51, August 26, 2020‎
 * 4) 06:54, August 26, 2020
 * 5) 07:08, August 26, 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Rapid-fire, undiscussed reverting of a years being added to an infobox. Editor claims that he's reverting a sock puppet and is thus exempt -- a claim I find hard to believe given that he simultaneously made essentially the exact same reverts on a parallel article -- --without the slightest indication or claim of sockpuppetry. --Calton &#124; Talk 08:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, this seems lame? Yes, there is an indication or claim of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries. Nothing about this seems to me to justify edit-warring by either of you. What's the problem, exactly? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Added by sockpuppet . Per Edit warring, reverts of actions performed by sock puppets are exempt from 3RR, so the first diff linked above is exempt. With regard to the final two links above, per Edit warring: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert", and the final diff is reverting a sock puppet anyway. There are 3 reverts reverting Calton, and so the bright-line rule is not breached.
 * There is no sock puppetry as far as I know at Akihito. I never said there was. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right that reverting actions performed by sock puppets is an exception to edit warring; however, after Calton, a user in good standing, took responsibility for that content, the exemption ceased to apply and, so, you should follow WP:DR to solve the content dispute. Salvio 10:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the exemption applied to Calton's edits. That is apparent from my comment at 09:15 and edit summaries at 06:48, 06:54 and 07:08. DrKay (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If I may interject, DrKay's edit is quite correct. We no longer display the total number of years & days, in the infobox. The start & end dates of the reign, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: If I had been awake at the time & aware of the Calton's bold changes at Hirohito & Akihito? I too, would've reverted him. GoodDay (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Horseradishy reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – with narrators included as voice actors

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – User:Horseradishy removed credits
 * 2)  – again
 * 3)  – same
 * 4)  – same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – content removal warning

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

Comments:

User:Horseradishy insists that narrators (in this case, Ringo Starr and later Michael Angelis) should not be included as voice actors in the infobox of a TV show character, The Fat Controller. His rationale of "Narrators are not relevant to voice acting a specific character" makes no sense to me, nor has he provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly. Instead, all he can come up with is the Thomas Wikia, which is of no relevance to WP.

Convince him to either show me a WikiProject guideline which says not to include narrators as voice actors, or to back off and let my content stick. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For my money, you're both edit warring. Instead of blocking the both of you, I've fully protected the page for a few days, so that you can follow WP:DR. Salvio 13:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * DRN is where I'll go next. And User:Horseradishy was closer to tripping 3RR than me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:P.Samsonsite reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision, spam bot"
 * 2)  "Undid revision from spam bot"
 * 3)  "Restored bio of current position with NQ Minerals"
 * 4)  "Undid revision by Spam bot"
 * 5)  "edit"
 * 6)  "additional company information"
 * 7)  "video addition"
 * 8)  "added recent image of Beaconsfield"
 * 9)  "additional bio information"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 974889312 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 11)  "false information; opinionated exaggeration to purposely mislead; worked for several (not hundreds), successful companies"
 * 1)  "additional bio information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 974889312 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 3)  "false information; opinionated exaggeration to purposely mislead; worked for several (not hundreds), successful companies"
 * 1)  "additional bio information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 974889312 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 3)  "false information; opinionated exaggeration to purposely mislead; worked for several (not hundreds), successful companies"
 * 1)  "false information; opinionated exaggeration to purposely mislead; worked for several (not hundreds), successful companies"
 * 1)  "false information; opinionated exaggeration to purposely mislead; worked for several (not hundreds), successful companies"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've warned this obvious COI/paid editor about adding promotional material as well as messing up the article but they are either unaware of their talk page or ignoring it, so not sure how to prevent this from continuing. Any time they are reverted, they just restore the offending material and call the prior user a spam bot. Praxidicae (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And now another revert with no indication they even know what their talk page is. What method do we have to get them to stop? Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Primefac (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Rostadia2012 reported by User:Dante4786 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: to his credit, he did approach me on my page. However, he accused me of something I didn't do. I don't want to change the title of the article.

Comments: Firstly, apologies in advance. I am a novice on Wikipedia, this is fairly new to me and I probably messed up the report. Secondly, please don't block him. I believe he has good intentions. In fact, I took the report idea from him. He was right, we need a third party to resolve this. To explain what all of this is about: we are arguing over the language. He wants only the Romanian name of the stadium to be written at the beginning of the article (text). He wrote The Stadionul Steaua, I wrote The Steaua Stadium (Stadionul Steaua). He argued his view by writing: the Romanian stadiums and arenas keep the same model: Romanian language. Well, this is a lie. This is FALSE. My edits were done so that the page of Stadionul Steaua (2020) will resemble the page of Stadionul Steaua (1974). Since the former is a replacement for the latter, it makes sense in my opinion. And there are more examples supporting my point of view. The pages for the stadiums of Dinamo, Botosani or Poli Iasi have the same layout: the title is in Romanian, but the article begins with the name written in English. After all, we are on the English version of Wikipedia, aren't we? For a more famous stadium, see Santiago Bernabeu. It has both the English and the Spanish names written. He wants just the Romanian name. He wants the article to begin with "The Stadionul Steaua". This is a mixture of Romanian and English. "The Stadionul" is incorrect. It's like writing "the" twice, since "stadionul" is translated as "the stadium" in the Romanian language. Also, he is against the expression "informally also known", even though this is how it was written on Stadionul Steaua (1974) for the last 9 years.Dante4786 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place... You and Rostadia2012 need to follow to WP:DR to solve this content dispute; however, this noticeboard does not make decisions regarding content, it only deals with behavioural problems. For the moment, I'm closing the report with a warning. Please note that, if this edit war continues, blocks will be handed out.  Salvio 09:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This user is totally inexperienced with Wikipedia. He does not follow the models in the stadiums and behaves like a little dictator. Besides everything he corrected wrong because he doesn't follow the pattern, he tells me to write "informally" but at no stadium is it written like that. Someone simply wrote at a Romanian stadium and he thinks it has to be that way everywhere. He is very naive and does not respect anyone. Very disrespectful, he doesn't want consensus either. Rostadia2012 (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * he tells me to write "informally" but at no stadium is it written like that He is lying. See here and here. He is the one being disrespectful. He was the one resorting to name calling. I'm only trying to maintain a consistency between two pages. Dante4786 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is not really an area where I'm particularly experienced, so I'm not sure I can help solve the underlying content dispute. As I've said, admins do not rule on content, but only on behaviour. I might offer an opinion, if I'm familiar with the topic, but that's not the case here, unfortunately... In this case, my advice would be to either ask a question at WikiProject Football or try WP:3O. In addition to that, Rostadia2012, to say that Dante is behaving like a litte dictator is a violation of WP:CIVIL. At the same time, Dante4786, accusing Rostadia of lying assumes bad faith of him and is a violation of WP:CIVIL as well.  Look, I understand that tempers may be getting a bit frayed, but, if I may volunteer a bit of unsolicited advice, you should both disengage from the discussion for a little time, after all there is no deadline. Even if the article remains inconsistent for a little it's not the end of the world. Tomorrow, maybe, you can get back to the discussion relaxed and start one of the processes listed at WP:DR.  Salvio 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2606:A000:1120:8B74:A1BD:90D7:B50F:E7A6 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Pinkalicious & Peterrific. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Pinkalicious & Peterrific. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Pinkalicious & Peterrific. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User thinks the show is just a British show without real hard evidence. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The /64 range at Special:Contributions/2606:a000:1120:8b74::/64 has been blocked for a month by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Deacon Vorbis reported by User:Lightburst )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) diff An administrator reverted Deacon Vorbis restoring my comment
 * 5) diff Deacon Vorbis hatted my comment
 * 6) diff Deacon Vorbis hatted my comment again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments:

I do not want my comments erased, hatted or refactored. even though I stopped myself I admit this edit war has gotten out of hand, that is why I made an offer on Deacon Vorbis's talk page to strike the comment they disagree with and I also sent a dove to hoping to end the conflict. I think it is consensus that comments made at AfD should remain and if an editor changes their mind they should strike their comment as PMC has done. diff The editor made a contribution at the AfD that they then erased diff I reinstated the editor's comment diff the editor reverted that edit as well diff

I suspect that this conflict began a few weeks ago when Deacon Vorbis was edit warring on the WP:ARS page. User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding a comment on the ARS page: (here are the four:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff DV self revert 4th edit

Deacon Vorbis then filed an ANI which was contentious. diff Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My reverts were of personal attacks and attempts to un-collapse disruptive, off-topic derailing of an AfD discussion. I'm tired of this shit, and no one should have to put up with it.  WP:IAR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * From my limited knowledge, it's not entirely obvious that DV's apparent penchant for trying to police various discussions is necessarily the most productive use of their time. For the record, I still (for some reason) have this page watchlisted, and was made aware of DV through an entirely different edit war that was flooding my watchlist yesterday.   G M G  talk  16:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I came here with what I thought was an edit war. When I recognized the edit war, I stopped and warned the user. When the user continued to refactor my comments even when they were reinstated by an administrator, I tried to compromise by offering to strike the comment. When these approaches failed, I came here - not to get anyone punished - but to stop my comments on the AfD from being messed with. Because this apparently is not an edit war, I will be reverting the hat to display my comments and the comments of others under the hat. Lightburst (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from filer: Editor continues to follow me and now reverted my edit at another AfD. Rather than getting into another edit war, I responded at the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Shakeel Ahmad Gr reported by User:Prasanth202 (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:

user creating article himself again and again in different names Prasanth202 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've blocked him for being a spam/advertising only account, but know for the future that WP:AIV is more appropriate for this kind of thing and not the edit warring board. only (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Decasurger reported by User:Victor Schmidt (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid disruption 975202159 by Slashme (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 975117570 by Rosguill (talk)"
 * 3)  "←Removed redirect to National Dong Hwa University"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Twinkle doesn't seem to grasp a few things, so we do them manually: total of 4 Reverts, the first one is this. The user has been warned at User_talk:Decasurger. A talkpage resolution attempt was made by at the article talkpage. Note that the reported user is the only one that is edit warring in this direction, and is reverted by different editors, including Slashme (mentioned above),, and the original redirect by  Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Providing diffs for the warnings, as the editor has a penchant for blanking their page: 1st COI warning from me, 2nd paid warning from me , edit warring warning from , third paid warning  from me . signed,Rosguill talk 14:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do want to note that I was able to discuss the matter with Decasurger on their talk page. They intend to restore the page with additional secondary sources, which is fine in my book. Hopefully that will be enough to address the issues that others have raised with their edits. signed,Rosguill talk 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like the reverting has stopped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ItsMeDigital reported by User:Aoi (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 974992140 by Eti15TrSf (talk)I am using the same source you use, maybe you should take a deeper look at which aircraft are in service and which ones are nkt"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 974974992 by Eti15TrSf (talk)this is what the sources actually says, you're looking at all the aircraft while this is in service aircraft."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 974972627 by Eti15TrSf (talk)I am using the same source as you, you're putting in the wrong numbers in."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 974943272 by Eti15TrSf (talk)you clearly don't check your sources and just copy whatever is on it. check your talk page"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Noticed this edit war on my watchlist. I left 3RR notices on both editors' talk pages. The other user involved did not revert after the notice, but this user reverted again after the 3RR notice, with that edit taking the user over the 3RR. I wasn't going to report as the last revert was about ten hours ago so I understand if a reviewing administrator finds this report to be stale, but I noticed that the user has apparently used sockpuppets in the past to avoid the 3RR (see clerk's note at Sockpuppet investigations/ItsMeDigital/Archive), so I do believe this deserved some kind of scrutiny. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * from the page, along with Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  20:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Aoi reported by User:82.79.49.226 (Result: IP blocked )
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: This guy keeps removing what I'm trying to prove in the edit request and mistaking me for Nate Speed. I'm not Nate Speed, plus I'm trying to prove that United Artists is NOT a digital production company and the MGM/Annapurna joint venture isn't called "Mirror" until 2019. These are rumors that are complete hoaxes. 82.79.49.226 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IPs from Romania, Georgia, Ghana, and Egypt along to restore a sock's edit? Hostile IP? Sounds like a duck to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Namcokid47 reported by User:Superusergeneric (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
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:


 * Salvio 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:146.85.198.25 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:146.85.198.53 (can't make a diff; this is the only edit to the page)

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

Comments:

This is a very straight-forward report of an unregistered editor edit-warring to keep information in an article that other editors have attempted to remove. He or she has started a separate section in the article's Talk page, ignoring the other sections, that don't make any arguments for keeping the material except that it's referenced. ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . By now, the report is stale; however, I have semi-protected the page for a while, to stop this edit war. Salvio 09:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Crossroads reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Note that these are not all labelled "reverts" in edit summaries, but all involve the deletion/reversion of text back to a previous article version, and all in less than one hour of elapsed time.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  - this is not a simple revert, but it reverted to remove a heading which was previously removed  by the same user ten minutes earlier.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The same user has had a similar interaction on the same page, two weeks ago, but stopped just shy of violating 3RR: 





Also note that the main point at issue in these reverts is whether a preprint academic article can be used in a BLP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but as far as I can tell, it does not fall under WP:NOT3RR point 7, which is intended for the removal of clear BLP violations. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding these three, the first one is regarding different content than the latter two. Crossroads -talk- 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And we are in agreement, I hope, that the 3RR bright-line is not affected by whether or not the content is the same? An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the user apparently believes that their own Talk page preferences take priority over Wikipedia policy regarding required notifications. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Detailed response pending soon. Crossroads -talk- 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment according to the article history, Crossroads only made 3 reverts as most were consecutive edits (and the 2nd set was interrupted by another editor making an unrelated change, resulting in 3). In addition, the "edit war" ended 4 hours ago and the other party in the edit war has been indef'd per WP:AE, so there is no continuing disruption to prevent. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the most recent version?this edit but reverted to remove a heading which was previously removed here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you note that the edit you link to is part of other consecutive edits/reversions? Consecutive reversions count as a single reversion. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The new link is not, unless I am missing something. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are missing something. Crossroad's edits are in 3 sequential groups: Group 1: 0742, 0754, 0808 (McNulTEA reverted back); Group 2: 0820, 0823, 0824, 0825 (unrelated editor made an unrelated edit); Group 3: 0828, 0831, 0834. The "new link" you point to is the 0834 edit, part of group 3. (Sorry about timestamps, I don't have the patience to convert my timezone to UTC). Schazjmd   (talk)  20:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now that I had not been seeing the edits correctly as sequential groups; I now recognize that there are only three such groups today. Given that these occurred within an hour, and that the same user had gone to the brink of 3RR on the same issue on August 10, I would still request Admin attention to the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * These appear to be sequential edits. Looking at the edit page I see 3, arguably 2 blocks of edits. Crossroads made an edit on 10 Aug. The next block of edits was 28 Aug between 14:42 and 15:08. That includes the first two listed diffs. Since they are sequential edits they count as only one revision. The next two edits are part of a block of 7 total edits from 15:23 to 15:34. Technically Escape Orbit made an edit in the middle of that block so that could be considered 2 blocks not one. Either way, this is either a 2RR or 3RR case. I don't see a 3RR violation here. Springee (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. A few points:

1. The editor I was reverting has just been indeffed by per WP:NOTHERE.

2. Regarding my four edits listed here, the first two are effectively one edit where I removed a self-published source. In the fourth edit I again fixed a mistake where I left a duplicate section heading. Am I to be sanctioned for 3RR because I accidentally took two edits in two cases when I meant it to be one edit per action? Should I have left the duplicate section heading? WP:3RR states, emphasis added, An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

3. Newimpartial WP:HOUNDs me. I confronted them here. Their denial is both entirely expected and not convincing. They hounded me again here by opening this baseless report regarding my behavior at an article they have never edited.

4. At this ANI report about another user, Newimpartial made false and misleading statements about my behavior, which I rebutted. The discussion is long and I doubt anyone will want to read any of it, but readers can use "find" on our names and see for themselves.

I said what I said about them posting on my userpage, even though the notification is required, because I do want to ban them from my userpage. This report should be dismissed at minimum, or even WP:BOOMERANGed as bad faith harassment. I had commented on Newimpartial's talk page that if their behavior toward me did not improve I may seek a one-way WP:IBAN from them towards me. The only thing that makes me balk at that is that we do both edit gender related articles and I am unsure if a one-way IBAN means that I am discouraged from replying to their comments and arguments about content, on pain of counter-accusations. Crossroads -talk- 20:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial is confusingly continuing to edit the initial report apparently, but as of right now, diff "5." is not a revert at all. Diff "4." was removing a formatting issue - a duplicate heading - as explained above. Diff "5." is combining an existing paragraph with an existing section. I had not ever removed that section heading before except for the duplicate. The diff in the sentence following diff "5." is the same as diff "4.". Crossroads -talk- 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Diff 5 is a revert in that it removes the section heading previously removed in the previously mentioned edit. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how any of Crossroads' recent post is relevant to the 3RRN except for point 2. I have addressed the HOUNDING accusation - I think quite openly and politely - on my talk page here. Also, I don't think a BOOMERANG suggestion can be made on the 3RRN towards an editor who has not edited the page in question, not engaged in an EW. As far as the "consecutive edits" matter is concerned, I have now added the most recent revert to the filing, yielding 5.

My understanding of WP:EW is that 3RR is a bright line but that edit warring behaviour is discouraged even when it stops short of the bright line (some have referred to it as GAMING behaviour), and that monitoring the revert behavior of editors by those not INVOLVED in particular discussions was an approved activity. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I warned Crossroads and McNulTEA about edit warring, and neither made another edit to the article after that. That's how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure what the point is of reporting it here hours later when neither editor violated 3RR and neither continued to edit after being warned. Schazjmd  (talk)  21:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinged. I have no opinion on this report beyond pointing out that I idefed . I would have to say that it would be fore the best if and  stayed away from each other. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This implies that me and Newimpartial are equally at fault such that we should both be sanctioned. I have not hounded Newimpartial or opened frivolous reports on them. The problem behavior is one-way. But I am not specifically seeking a sanction. My main point is that this report about me is baseless and should be rejected. Crossroads -talk- 20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not previously filed a frivolous report against me, you say? The problem behavior is one-way, you say? Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first link shows you getting warned by an administrator who said he considered it a violation. So, not frivolous, you just didn't get blocked. The second link is me warning you about possibly violating an administrator's direction regarding another user. And you were given an official IBAN towards her after that. Crossroads -talk- 20:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would encourage interested parties to read the links rather than accepting Crossroads' summaries. In the first instance, I was warned for making two edits to a 1RR page just over 25 hours apart, where the second edit was a compromise and not a reinserting of my "prefered" content. In the second instance, Crossroads was warning that I should not be at the discussion because of administrative enforcement action that was not yet in place(!), and ignoring the part of the admin's warning to me that Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. In spite of Crossroads' repeated ALLEGATIONS, neither this nor any other comment I made at ANI constituted "interaction" with the editor with whom I became ibanned. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The administrator actions speak for themselves. I had not understood what the "monopoly of pages" part meant at that time, nor was I clear about the nature of the direction, so, sorry for saying you shouldn't have been at the discussion at all. That comment was incorrect. Crossroads -talk- 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But you don't think that (bold font and all) it was frivolous? Particularly since it preceded the iBan? Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a frivolous report. This is. Crossroads -talk- 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out that you walked up to 3RR (within an hour) today, and stopped, after walking up to 3RR on the same page (and issue) on August 10, and stopping. If I had done the same, would you regard the report as frivolous, or would you want to see at least a warning if not a GAMING block? Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have reported you. Simple as that. And I think you counting the intervening totally unrelated edit by an unrelated editor that I didn't even see until after the fact, as one meaning I made 3 reverts instead of 2, is pretty unfair. Especially since that "3rd" set did not contain any reverts (I was not changing anything back) unless you count removing a now-unneeded heading as repeating a removal of a duplicate heading, which again, is pretty unfair. Crossroads -talk- 21:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time I filed my report, the other editor had not been blocked. If the same issue were to arise again on the same page, are you suggesting that Crossroads would not walk up to 3RR again before stopping? Do you have reason to think so?
 * The point of the filing is to prevent further edit warring, as I should have thought was evident from the context. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't walk up to it, as explained just above, and the issue is fixed because the WP:NOTHERE editor who was causing the disruption both times has been indeffed. Crossroads -talk- 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Salvio 21:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cloudboard reported by User:Phoenix012087 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  blatant disregard of infobox template use
 * 3)  one of at least three addition of unlicensed images (already flagged and deleted in Commons

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

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

Comments:

Very straight-forward, disruptive edits from would be fan(s) who have complete disregard for all the tenets of Wikipedia WP:NOTHERE. Repeatedly adding images violating copyright rules that have also been flagged over at Commons, Phoenix012087 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)}}

User:2001:4454:669:4000:24AE:28E2:4729:8013 reported by User:Phoenix012087 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  intentional removal of maintenance template without addressing issues.

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

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

Comments:

Disruptive edits by IP, unsupported/unsourced edits, flagged/warned by other users. Phoenix012087 (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) May 28 - (Undid revision 959401764 by Evrik (talk) trivial and not even mentioned in source provided)
 * 2) May 30 - (badly sourced (and trivial) content)
 * 3) May 30 - (Undid revision 959876669 by Evrik (talk) Your source is unreliable, the info is trivial and the source itself doesn't even say that the song has been influential on KROQ Top 106.7. (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:UNDUE))
 * 4) June 6 - (Undid revision 959882967 by Evrik (talk) rv blatant POV-pushing (and still trivial) information.)
 * After I cleaned up the references with Prove-It


 * 1) July 4 - (restored last clean version as per WP:CITEVAR / still blatant POV-pushing (and still trivial) information about KROQ Top 106.7 (no evidence of notability in sources provided)
 * 2) August 1 - (Undid revision 966095056 by Evrik (talk) rv to last clean version as per WP:CITEVAR and still blatant POV-pushing)
 * 3) August 28 - (rv as per WP:CITEVAR and still blatant POV-pushing. No consensus for these changes anyway.)
 * 4) August 28 - (Undid revision 975526258 by Evrik (talk) It's up to you to discuss your changes, as you never reached a consensus to add your badly sourced additions or even your numerous changes in citation styles. Read and understand WP:CITEVAR, WP:POV and WP:RS)
 * From today:

Diff of edit warring warning:
 * 1) (See talk page, as well as WP:CITEVAR.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Once and twice. Comments:

This is a long-term edit war, and Synthwave.94 has made no effort to discuss this, but simply keeps reverting my edits. On June 20, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns was featured on the main page as a DYK with the following hook, " ... that the inaugural Top 106.7 Countdown in 1980 was topped by the song "Whip It" by Devo (pictured)?"

At first, Synthwave.94 stripped out my addition to the article with the comment, "Year-end charts: radio charts are "bad charts". Okay, I integrated the fact, with a source into the article. I refined my source to answer one of the critiques. The fact I have added was sourced, and good enough to be on the main page, with the photo. I have gone to the talk page, and am willing to discuss this. Synthwave.94 has yet to respond on the talk page, but is also now reverting the clean-up I made of the references. --evrik (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User Synthwave.94 is also edit warring in other articles as well. Eagles (band) and Back in Black are two examples. Warnings were issued and the relevant guidelines were provided, and all have been ignored in favor of edit warring. SolarFlashTalk Page 07:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Rohitashchandra reported by User:PainProf (Result: Topic banned under WP:AC/DS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 975537119 by PainProf (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 975522078 by JzG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 975417483 by Roxy the dog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I think this user is potentially NOTHERE PainProf (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * nb user is ds aware and has been warned previously. PainProf (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also had to revert edits just now, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: mostly the same promotional edits have been done at Unani medicine, Ministry of AYUSH. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am seeing a whole lot of edit warring, POV-pushing, tendentious editing and incivility. As such, I am about to impose a topic ban under WP:AC/DS. Salvio 09:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ErnestoCabral2018 reported by User:Magitroopa (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:

The above diff of the attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page is actually an entire section before this user was edit warring. We'd (myself, another user, and an IP) previously been discussing that just, "seeing the film" is original research and that sourcing is still required, per WP:FILMCAST.

The user in question has been continuing to revert to unsourced characters, with the 'sources' they are using were previously on the article's page and do not support the information at all. For example, in the current version of the article, this source is being used to claim that Awkwafina's character name is Otto. However, this source is actually just from when it was revealed that Awkwafina would be in the film, nothing at all about the character she is portraying. Another example of that would be this source supposedly supporting "Danny Trejo as El Diablo"- yet neither that actor or that character is mentioned anywhere in that article.

The talk page discussion I've linked them to multiple times is located here, but it is clear that the editor is not willing to read it, also calling my reverts a, "tantrum of yours". Magitroopa (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment: Based off of this comment on my talk page, it seems that the user may be going off of IMDb as a source, which is very much not allowed as per WP:RS/IMDb / WP:Citing IMDb. Magitroopa (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The edits seems to entirely go against WP:VERIFYOR- the sources literally do not support the information they are supposedly supporting, as in at least two of the cast members- examples explained in initial discussion above. With that being said, this seems to be entirely original research, as they are not giving any sources to support the information and seem to be claiming the film's Canada release as a 'source', and possibly IMDb as well. What would be best to do with that being said? I'm sure if I were to revert to the previously correct version with the sources supporting what they are actually supposed to be supporting, I'd be reverted once more, and the edit war would go even further- which I definitely don't want to happen... Magitroopa (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apologies for all the replies, but for a possible resolution to this issue- I believe I completely forgot that the film itself is a primary source, per Cite AV media and the two discussions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb- would that be fine to use that even though the film has currently only released in Canada? And would it be fine to revert one last time to the sourcings in the correct place and then citing the film?... And finally, I personally don't live in Canada, but citing the film itself for the cast/credits, would a YouTube video like this be fine for someone like me (who doesn't live in Canada) to use to verify the credits? Magitroopa (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Namiba reported by User:Audentis (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975081786&oldid=974651772 (diff btw Namiba’s edit, the version Namiba keeps reverting to, and the prior version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Aug 29: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975613955&oldid=975613193
 * 2) Aug 29: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975607950&oldid=975562086
 * 3) Aug 28: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975443783&oldid=975340828
 * 4) Aug 27: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975238693&oldid=975198088
 * 5) Aug 26: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&diff=975081786&oldid=974651772

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page (below).

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

Comments:

Editor insists that all mention of the Progressive Party be removed from the article, although the subject has (according to sources) pledged to run for that party as a candidate. Editor doesn’t consider the party viable, but it has been explained to the editor that opinions should not be the basis of Wiki editing and Wiki is not a soapbox. A discussion has been opened on the talk page, but the editor still insists on removing all info on the Progressive Party even if sourced. Editor reverts over and over again when the removals are remedied. Editor has also added in info and wording that violates NPOV re: the subject. NPOV issues raise added concern of vandalism.
 * As can be surmised from the talk page of Dario Hunter, my contention is that the Progressive Party, which the candidate founded earlier this month and which has had zero press coverage, is not an actual political party. Nevertheless, I have not broken any Wikipedia policies by trying to prevent misleading information from being added to a WP:BLP. Moreover, very suspiciously, a number of single-purpose IPs have made edits closely mirroring User:Audentis, which I believe are either operating in tandem with the editor or are in fact the editor itself trying to ignore the guidelines around WP:3R. I hope the IPs in question will be examined to avoid any potential for gaming of the system to maintain a false impression. The diffs for such edits are here, [here, here, here, here, and here. I've sought outside editors to help resolve this dispute.--[[User:Namiba]] 15:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor has confirmed my earlier statement - that the editor’s issue is with what they consider to be the unviability or lack of notoriety of the political party. But the party doesn’t have to be viable or notable to reflect the fact of the subject’s membership and his run as a candidate. If this were an article about that party, notoriety would be an issue. It’s not. The subject is already notable. The facts about him don’t have to merit their own independent Wiki article to be in the article about him. The editor wants to force the subject to be an ‘independent’ when the sources indicate that he is not. Re: NPOV issues, editor keeps reverting the article to wording that is skewed towards the subject’s former competition, Howie Hawkins, and has added skewed claims without proper sources. As noted on the talk page, editor has also been an editor for Hawkins related pages, engaging in edit warring like behavior to remove controversies in that candidate’s campaign that also involve the subject of this article.Audentis (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that the editor has reverted my notice on their talk page of this report, but I have complied with that rule as reflected in this diff of the editor’s talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Namiba&oldid=prev&diff=975623774 Audentis (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Salvio 15:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:122.53.222.246 reported by User:Serendipodous (Result: Blocked 1 week)
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:


 * for slow motion edit warring over an extended period of time, including since this discussion was opened. I also note that they appear to have been engaging in similar questionable editing at 2020 in the Philippines, and will leave a note to try to help explain how to edit more constructively. signed,Rosguill talk 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:93.136.100.72 reported by User:WEBDuB (Result: )
Page: Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia

User being reported: User:93.136.100.72 Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I have already reported this group of IP's for long-term abuse, but no one responded.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As a editor who has seen this before this one of many similar IPs with addresses pointing to Croatia from what I can look up. They have been following user WEBDuB with abusive text assualts. Harassing them. So I can attest that this is a serious issue. OyMosby (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) --WEBDuB (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Mikesiva reported by User:WinstonGroovy (Result:OP blocked )
Page: Mary_Seacole

User being reported: User_talk:Mikesiva

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 keeps adding unsourced or poorly sourced material on a contentious issue. Many of the claims are not backed by the text of the source, or the source is not RS, or the source contradicts the claims being added to the Wiki article. The use is aggressive and has a history of not attempting to achieve consensus on the talk page. WinstonGroovy (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history of the page, it appears on first pass that has exceeded 3RR, but  has not. I also note that WinstonGroovy has been going through a number of articles systematically removing sources that Mikesiva has inserted, on the grounds that Mikesiva appears to be the author of the source (a PhD thesis, which on the face of it is permitted per WP:SELFCITE). I would probably block WinstonGroovy at this point for the edit warring, but I'm hoping that they will respond to the message I've put on their talk page, and that they will be willing to consider self-reverting their removals, which look rather like WP:REVENGE at this point, and which they could not undo if they were to be blocked.  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No response from OP on talk, I've undone the dubious removals myself and blocked for 24 hours. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:WEBDuB reported by User:93.136.100.72 (Result: )
Page: Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia

User being reported: User:WEBDuB Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

He broke 3RR and he writes lies without putting a source where it can be read, where it writes what he wrote.93.136.100.72 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:

... ...
 * 1) Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.
 * 2) Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.


 * (WP:3RRNO)--WEBDuB (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source was requested in addition to what was written which the user did not give and continued the vandalism.93.136.100.72 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not banned user, sockpuppets or blocked users.
 * 2) there was no vandalism and adding offensive language.
 * Please, stop with that. The sectionm should summarize key points from the body. Everything has been cited and documented for a long time.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put the source where you write and you are doing vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.100.72 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ignore the IP, the same user (same IP range and writing style) has been banned several times for edit warring and this is a major WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just look at this diff . Most probably a sock (don't have the time to make a full report).  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing to say about the topic, you didn't say anything and make a full report.93.136.100.72 (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:947F:EB00:6465:7184:E1CF:7E40 reported by User:Viljo (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: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Pierce Brothers Westwood Village Memorial Park and Mortuary. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, slightly rusty. I've made it clear to the user that they must adhere to NPOV and not publish their own commentary, and if they want to cite group opinion to use sources, but to no avail. &ensp;talk 18:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – The /64 was blocked 31 hours by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:901:200:1610:C851:6F4:AB51:3274 reported by User:L293D (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "It’s not hate when the owner says it"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* History */News"
 * 6)  "/* History */Added back news. People can make up their own mind"
 * 7)  "/* History */Added new news"
 * 8)  "/* History */Formatting"
 * 9)  "/* History */Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "/* History */News"
 * 2)  "/* History */Added back news. People can make up their own mind"
 * 3)  "/* History */Added new news"
 * 4)  "/* History */Formatting"
 * 5)  "/* History */Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "/* History */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Palmetto Cheese. (TW)"
 * 2)   "stop"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have made three reverts, so I can't edit the page any more.

Another user: has made four reverts to the page as well. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:Docsholiday has been warned on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Adamant1 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I said the guideline only applies if it's a basic plot. An overly detailed six paragraph long section isn't "BASIC." I'm not sure what you don't get about that. Instead of trying to get your way by cutting and pasting the same exact thing back, summaries the information better so it's actually a BASIC plot summary."
 * 2)  ""basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Not the word "BASIC" there. This isn't a "BASIC" plot summary. Also, the sentence right after "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns."  Feel free to actually summaries it though, but currently it's way to detailed for the "no sources" in WP:FILMPLOT to qualify."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries are allowed without sources as long as the film is available for viewing (unlike lost films) aren't they? But this user is refusing to cooperate. If he was right, so many film articles would not have attained FA status like Sholay. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. Last time I checked two reverts isn't edit warring. Also, I made it 100% clear in my revert comments that the thing in WP:FILMPLOT about sources only applies if it's a basic plot and 6 long overly detailed paragraphs like the ones the user was trying to keep in the article don't qualify as being a basic plot IMO. I also made it clear in my revert comments that the best route would be for the user to summarize the plot better. Which would then make WP:FILMPLOT actually apply. Apparently they ignored me though and decided to open this completely baseless complaint instead. Which I figured they would do. While it's their prerogative, it does seem a little retaliatory. There's zero reason they couldn't have just rewritten the plot summary better or at least left me a message on my talk so we could have discussed it. As such, and because it's glaringly obvious I wasn't edited warring, I'd appreciate it if this was closed on principle and the user was told not to open baseless retaliatory complaints anymore. Thank you. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The talk page should be used to discuss this matter. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Personnn12345678910 reported by User:Idell (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you delete what I post, and ill delete what you post. so just stop while you're at it"
 * 2)  "ok"
 * 3)  "You're a nut job psycho who has nothing better to do than tear others down"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Palmetto Cheese. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * by  Salvio 10:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Zoe1013 reported by User:Laterthanyouthink (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I added another reference that references bralettes as training bras. I added another source. Why won’t you at least look at the reference?"
 * 2)  "Added a reference that uses bralette as a training bra"
 * 3)  "There was never a discussion about not adding bralette as an alternative term. In fact someone on the talk page has said that bralettes can serve as a training bra."
 * 4)  "A training bra is a type of bralette. What is so confusing about that?"
 * 5)  "A training bra is a type of bralette."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Training bra. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Training bra. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Training bra. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bralette as an alternative term for training bra */ Comment"
 * 2)   "/* Bralette as an alternative term for training bra */  last comment"

Comments:

User keeps reverting before discussion is complete, removed warnings from her user page, and doesn't appear to to understand the process for consensus, nor the actual reason why what she's doing is incorrect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We have resolved our differences in the talk page. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: Subject of this notice blanked this section. I have restored it. Eric talk 02:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you combine the BATTLEGROUND editing style with the topic choices and immature attitude, this editor is thoroughly NOTHERE, which is likely beyond the scope of this discussion. My hope is, an interested editor with experience with young users might take her under their wing and turn her around. This user has been problematic since her arrival. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This incident has apparently been solved satisfactorily. If further action is needed, it's best handled elsewhere. Salvio 10:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Angus1986 reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Declined)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous versions 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: No, I am not going to follow this editor around and open a talk page discussion at each and every article they copy edit, each one enumerating each of the errors in their edit. See comments below.

Comments:

I BRD-reverted the user's copy edit at Donald Trump because each and every one of its ~10 changes was either clearly wrong (most) or not improvement (perhaps one). The editor hit me up at my UTP for an explanation, and I carefully detailed the errors one by one. They did not object to my assessments, but they then proceeded to make some of the same kinds of errors at Vladimir Putin. I pinged them to my UTP and pointed this out, and I suggested that perhaps this type of editing is not their forte. They responded defensively and continued with the bad copy edits at a succession of articles. I have partially reverted some of them, retaining the good and the harmless, and they have re-reverted most of that. If not edit warring, I don't know what to call this; breach of 3RR is not required. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * wasn't polite with his reply, instead just said that my English is not good(how can he say this?). Also, most of the edit waring were started by him, he is going on the pages which I edited and just undoing with comments(undoing the "fixes") which I find to be quite rude. Also,@ in your comment above "...~10 changes ((were)) either clearly wrong.." please use correct English first before pointing to the others. Angus1986 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As none of that would justify edit warring even if correct, I won't bother responding to it here. It's off topic and irrelevant. But I will point out that ALL of my edits in this have followed standard BRD process, and I have not responded to your edit warring by edit warring. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I did edit warring, let's see what Admins have to say. Thank you! Angus1986 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Needless to say on both counts. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Angus1986 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's of any help in dealing with this, I get the impression that Angus is an inexperienced editor who means well, but is in a hurry to do things—perhaps too much of a hurry. Some of his/her edits are good, but a few introduced, rather than corrected, grammatical errors, enough to make me wonder if he/she is not a native English speaker. (If that's the case, his/her English is really good!) I cautioned him/her about over-using the Minor checkbox and, if asked, I would advise him/her to spend some time reading the wealth of tutorial information WP contains, and try not to be so defensive when other people talk to him/her—no one is perfect; everyone makes mistakes. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A userbox on their UP says they are a native English speaker, and I'll take that at face value. Anyway too many of this editor's "grammar fixes" are just terrible – I could produce a sampling of the worst if no one has the time to check out the recent contribs – and I don't know of any tutorial information WP contains that helps with such problems.In my opinion we may be witnessing the birth of the next Anthony22, minus the condescending tone in edit summaries, and I haven't forgotten what a deplorable time sink that was for years before he was finally banned or indeffed. In any case we still have a number of article changes that are unacceptable but that I can't correct without edit warring, and we have no reason to believe that things will improve in the future. We can kick this can down the road like we repeatedly did with Anthony22, but I won't be the last to complain about this editor's "grammar fixes". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See Mandruss, again you are being very rude. Comparing me with someone is just very discriminatory, your attitude is very wrong. UncleBubba's comments are very kind and encouraging, @UncleBubba, yes I am new to this, I will be careful with my edits henceforth. Thank you for being kind and polite, UncleBubba. :) Angus1986 (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've come across this discussion having separately discovered this user's prolific, blunt and unscrutinised serial misapplication of a grammar tool. Despite requests to desist and to revert their errors, they have done neither and have indeed carried on in the same vein, with no evident appreciation of what they are doing. I have no doubt they are enthusiastic and in good faith but, having been informed and warned of their problematic editing by several editors now, they can not be allowed to continue in this reckless vein. If anything is rude here, it is the disregarding of the advice and warnings of other editors and the imposition upon their time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a case of edit warring. Some of Angus1986's changes do appear unhelpful at best, which shows me that he should probably not be using whatever tool he's using; for that, I'll leave a comment on his talk page. That said, I'm afraid this is the wrong venue to discuss the issue. Salvio 12:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:07wickedwizard reported by User:Go to sleep! (Result:Both users partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go to sleep! (talk • contribs) 06:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Entire thing started on 12 Auguest 2020 when I changed a color in the table legend from a "yellow" to "orange" for better comprehension since the "immune" legend is being represented in the table with a "yellow" and can not be the same as another entity separate from this legend. I suspect this user has 2 accounts and alternates between reverting these edits. I have also left warning on their talkpage  and asked them to discuss the issue on the talkpage of the article but they just keep changing it back. There has been a significant number of these reverts and some are silent reverts which can be hard to catch in some diffs. User does not want to engage in the discussion on talkpage and keeps reverting even after I added a prompt next to the legend in the table source. The following is a summary of suggested edit:

Previous:
 * Indicates contestant belonged to Gangleader Raftaar tribe
 * Indicates the contestant was immune that week.

New:
 * Indicates contestant belonged to Gangleader Raftaar tribe
 * Indicates the contestant was immune that week.

--Go to sleep! (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add this, I've just been following the same edits made in previous seasons wherein one season colored flags were signed(representing their gang) in a season(don't know which). You can't just come up nad report someone for not accepting a different colour and when changes it back to its original, report them. You didn't even wait for me to reply, also changing it to orange will clash with color legend for battleground entries(orange used in previous seasons). Don't know why you reported me for a color difference out of nowhere since I've been editing the web page from the last few seasons. If I'm still found guilty for being reported, sorry for following up with previous seasons edits and color legends. Also you can't just go around and change the color legend for all seasons just because you want it to be different(orange) for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07wickedwizard (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC) only (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a partial block for both users from the article in question. This is among the lamest of slow edit wars. Please settle this through the talk page.  Seek outside input as necessary through the dispute resolution process.  Also, both users are reminded that edit notes are only used for established consensus and not one person's opinion; they are not used to push your view and to specifically target one editor as it was when I removed it.

User:Exxcalibur808 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut 3RR violation. Earlier IP revert possibly related. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Salvio 10:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor has shown no appreciation or awareness of the disruptiveness of their behaviour and has has continued the edit warring behaviour at Garry Kasparov here and here. There was a similar incident a few years ago involving the same editor on the Viswanathan Anand article. We see a definite pattern of disruptive editing here. Please consider extending the block, and maybe a topic ban on chess articles. I note that similar arguments have occurred on basketball and hip hop music articles involving this editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Pitchcurve reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 976054032 by Yae4 (talk) it's very clearly stated in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CopperheadOS#XDA_OTA_article_quote_for_Yae "The reasons behind disabling these OTA upgrades overlaps with why CopperheadOS cannot be purchased and flashed on a Google Pixel. On the Google Pixel, you either have to purchase the device with the custom ROM preinstalled or send in your own Google Pixel for flashing [...]""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 975899596 by Yae4 (talk) these are two different things and BOTH are covered by the article... this is not duplicating the next sentence as you claim, disabling OTAs was a short-lived event as the article explains with the update"
 * 3)  "/* History */ the article says the downloads were only available "for internal use" and required authentication. The important part of the sentence is not the detail of how that was enforced but rather the state of the downloads"
 * 4)  "/* History */ former lead developer's criticism of the BlackBerry Priv does not appear to be relevant to an article about CopperheadOS unless there is a secondary source showing some kind of relevance or impact on CopperheadOS from this tweet / interview"
 * 1)  "/* History */ former lead developer's criticism of the BlackBerry Priv does not appear to be relevant to an article about CopperheadOS unless there is a secondary source showing some kind of relevance or impact on CopperheadOS from this tweet / interview"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Was warned. 

Recent reverts: 23:04, 31 August 2020

22:24, 31 August 2020

Other war-like edits:

Over-Citing with secondary source not supporting statement (and date) added to article, primary source, and self-published sources: 22:21, 31 August 2020

Edit summary and Talk section heading directed at editor, not topic: 

Multiple claims of "Misrepresentation" and personal attacks on editor.

Deleting secondary-sourced material,

Disregard for previous work done by multiple editors, and using blog post to support positions.

Supporting another alias that soon after admitted having COI.

Personal statement: I helped create and get GrapheneOS (now a competitor of CopperheadOS) to "Did You Know." I was aware of CopperheadOS article, but previously avoided editing it, other than removing a Liliputing source in September 2019. It came to my attention again for the same reason recently. I don't have a "dog in the fight." It is probably obvious I previously felt more supportive of GrapheneOS; however, it is not right to let "Pitchcurve" own the articles. I know my editing has also approached 3RR violation and is not without fault. I've attempted discussions, but we only seem able to agree on the very smallest of points. I'm sure you're aware of the SPI filing also. Please give this an independent look and take whatever action, if any, is appropriate. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Xerxes931 reported by User:Wareon (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23 August
 * 2) 25 August
 * 3) 25 August
 * 4) 26 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am seeing pattern of WP:IDHT and WP:OWN from this user. Wareon (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The other user was solely being disruptive by removing sourced information backed by major scholars and was instead talking on the talk page about alternative name meanings, supported by unauthentic or Indian sources which had a clear bias towards this topic, both you and him obviously had an emotional POV regarding this topic due to your Indian origins. I’ve solely kept WP:STATUSQUO with my reverts, do you guys expect to do major changes( removing 3000bits of authentic sourced information) and get away without someone reverting you and telling you to wait till the dispute is over ? But no Zakaria kept reverting back to his version, here is the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_Kush the discussion seemed over anyways as everyone stopped responding since they understood that weak unauthentic sources weigh nothing against those sources in the article. --Xerxes931 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * has been edit warring on the Hindu Kush page, shoving his preferred etymology "Hindu Killer" at the top. I started a post on Talk:Hindu Kush to try to get Xerxes931 to get the consensus for this. and  agreed that the disputed etymology shouldn't be at the top, when there are other etymologies too. Still, the Xerxes931 kept on going. Zakaria1978 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the above comments actually capture the essence of what is going on. The page had been stable for quite some time, and then was changed by Zakaria1978, who then protested that Xerxes931 form consensus to undo Zakaria1978's changes. That seems to me a bit backwards, the person making the change should form consensus, not the person reverting back to statusquo. Alishernavoi (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, The only thing I see is one person keeping WP:STATUSQUO and another edit warring, whatever you just said regarding the topic has already been debunked on the talk page, no need for me to respond towards that.--Xerxes931 (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The material Xerxes was adding was extremely problematic and because it is disputed, it was removed. The current consensus favors its omission from the lede. Regardless, Xerxes was edit warring and crossed 3RR even after he was warned not to. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. There is no consensus to remove the definition from the lede. It is currently under discussion. Alishernavoi (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Till now you didn’t even understand what the reverts were about and who did what edit, further you don’t seem to have any basic knowledge regarding the topic being discussed, better to just not say anything. 1. I wasn’t adding any material, the article has always been that way, I was simply not letting you guys vandalize the article by removing sourced information. 2.The etymology of the mountains is not disputed as I elaborated on the talk page, however the “opposition” was constantly ignoring my comments on the talk page, 1990sguy didn't even bother participating in the talk, as it’s obvious that his knowledge regarding this topic is little to nonexistent, instead he kept edit warring. --Xerxes931 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Xerxes continues to edit war with more users on the same article, like and canvassing people to the RfC: 1,2 --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one Revert because of not having met any consensus about that =/= Edit war. Also simply asking people to leave their opinion on RFCs is not canvassing, but totally fine per WP:Policy, the Hindu kush is a mountain range primarily in Afghanistan, so asking for opinions on Wikiproject Afghanistan seems like a logical thing doesn't it? But sure whatever, a simple revert is an edit war now and asking people to leave their opinions is canvassing. --Xerxes931 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Alishernavoi is opened. Zakaria1978 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  03:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl reported by User:Hagar333 (Result: Declined no actionable edit warring)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Cox This article had requests for missing pages on articles, there were typos, missing information, and so forth. I spent many hours providing the missing information and information from the last five years or so.

BrownHairedGirl eliminated all the information. I restored it, she eliminated it and threatened me, "I will escalate"

I told her that all the information is correct. She is willing to check the publications to confirm the page numbers requested. She is welcome to check the composer's scores and work lists. She is completely wrong. She is acting like a bully.

I am not an expert in Wikipedia coding; I barely know any, and she obviously knows tons. But she is using her knowledge to bully and abuse people who are simply providing accurate information. I would request that she banned from any more editing on the "Franklin_Cox" (composer) page.

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

I can't provide an alternate version. BrownHairedGirl will simply eliminate my changes as soon as I make them.

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

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

I tried to inform BrownHairedGirl to check the page numbers requested for the article herself. She can check the publishers' sites, etc. She was not willing to do this.

This person is a complete bully.

Comments:


 * no actionable edit warring Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Crinklemouse reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Continous edit warring by Single-Purpose-Account Crinklemouse (which has only done this single repeated edit-revert, reverting this one change - created after IP edit was reverted) with no attempt to discuss, either in the edit summaries or the talk page. See the warnings from several editors on their talk page: User talk:Crinklemouse See almost all edits to the article from this one [] going forward.

I reported this to the Page-Protection noticeboard, and was told to "Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue."

Thanks!!!

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

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

Comments:


 * Salvio 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:69.132.68.166 reported by User:Swadge2 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Misquoted"
 * 1)  "/* Discography */By removing false information and replacing it with true information."
 * 2)  "Misquoted false information."
 * 3)  "By removing false information."
 * 4)  "Updated
 * 1)  "Removed false information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Other users have given a number of warnings. Swadge2 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * by  Salvio 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed redundancies."
 * 2)  "Please refute the objectively stated points in the talk section before making your befuddled edits to the article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 976028271 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 4)  "See talk section"
 * 1)  "See talk section"
 * 1)  "See talk section"

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."

Comments:

Contra10 was previously blocked for edit warring over this exact issue a couple weeks ago. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 09:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Strongconfident1 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop removing science info from the text"
 * 2)  "Stop removing science info from the text"
 * 3)  "Stop removing science info from the text"
 * 4)  "Stop removing science info from the text"
 * 5)  "Stop removing science info from the text"
 * 6)  "Corrected the info on Baltic grouping based on science. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages"
 * 7)  "I put in the info that Baltic and Slavis languages form separate groups."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Novice editor in "fight mode" for "science". Clearly not vandalism, but highly disruptive (not reacting to warnings). –Austronesier (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael.alexander.kaufmann reported by User:Aviartm (Result: Both warned)
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:56, August 31, 2020
 * 2) 08:58, August 31, 2020
 * 3) 09:06, August 31, 2020
 * 4) 09:15, August 31, 2020

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

The above versions under "Diffs of the user's revert".

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

Notice on the Talk Page: The constant use of subjective phrasing and terms in the article

Notice on user's Talk Page: Abstain from editing until Consensus is reached on the Trumpism Talk page.

Comments:

and I have tried to build a consensus on the Trumpism page. Trying to establish discourse and consensus, has continuously edit-warred, reverting constructive edits, and stonewalling any new additions or changes without much giving. Aviartm (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Response from Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have agreed to building a consensus on the talk page, see here:


 * Although I was trying to constructively resolve the conflict, kept reverting to his revisions that suppressed important sourced content. My constructive approaches for conflict resolution were left unanswered. See here:


 * Instead, reported me here, trying to block me. As a consequence, I reported  too, because in my opinion, he reverted four times in 24h and he started it.


 * My suggestion for conflict resolution is that we go through the article, sentence by sentence, on its talk page, and try to agree on any changes to improve the neutrality of the article. Until we have reached consensus, the page is left in its latest stable version, which, according to a majority of current editors, is the version currently online. I mean this one:


 * With best regards Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Michael.alexander.kaufmann and User:Aviartm are both warned for edit warring. The next time either of you reverts this article you are risking a block unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Aviartm reported by User:Michael.alexander.kaufmann (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&oldid=975701992

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&diff=975717361&oldid=975701992 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&diff=975806397&oldid=975798606 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&diff=975976871&oldid=975949933 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&diff=975977975&oldid=975977606 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&diff=975979519&oldid=975979515

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not warned Aviartm about edit warring because I am new to Wikipedia editing and I was not aware of this rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&diff=975963200&oldid=975949058

Comments:

Aviartm repeatedly vandalized the page via reverting and edit warring. In fact, he kept deleting important sourced material for no or subjective reasons, and me and other editors just tried to conserve the last stable version of the page. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This appears to be somewhat of a retaliatory report in response to Aviartm reporting you above. That said, there are reverts that need to be looked at here as I think I can count 4 reverts (though I don't think they are within a 24-hour period). Either way, you appear to have neglected to notify to this thread, nor have you warned him about edit warring on his talk page. You must do both. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed, see this link Again, I am sorry that I did not warn him because I was not aware of this rule – it's my first "edit war" and I did not even know this exists until now. Howerer, I am sure knows exactly how this rule works, and that is why his four edits are not within a 24 hour period. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The removed content is either irrelevant to the article, poorly cite, or badly placed within the article – this is not vandalism, and I did notify the reasoning to such removals. My removals of, and eventual fixing of, and additions to the article, 13 edits (in one example), does not necessitate all edits removed (not reverted in this one) just because the removed content was a poorly placed and redundant addition of Donna Brazile about the differences between Trumpism and Lincoln Republicanisn, and the other removed part is an oddly placed correction of one of Trump's statements presumed to be wrong. In another example, all edits were removed once again in addition to notices initially placed by SubjectiveStopper, who placed them within the article when this did happen. After that, I placed back how the article once was. The next edits, I reverted a good faith edit of a German academic on Trumpism, as it was placed into the lead by Michael, however, I moved that addition to International Reception under Reception – this would have lead to identical copies of the exact content. Michael then undid my edit, despite his addition of the German academic already within the article, just not in the lead. Michael then posits that I show a "moderate to high level of vandalism" about the "oddly placed correction of one of Trump's statements presumed to be wrong" edits that was omitted earlier due to its isolated application and odd place. Michael places within the article, once more, that was initially removed, the content about Donna Brazile on the differences of Trumpism and Lincoln Republicanism. The next edit on the page, I tell Michael to go to the Talk Page. Michael makes changes afterward, one of them being a "Undid revision 975979519 by Aviartm". I notify Michael of his edits, "(WP:EDITWAR - Go to the Talk Page.)", and to go to the Talk Page where we are discussing what to do. Lastly, Michael, once more, "(Undid revision 975980263 by Aviartm" reverts, despite two notices by me to go to the Talk Page and more by others. I have tried and did make constructive edits that improved the quality of the article and the issues currently plaguing it, only for my edits to be reverted because Michael's edits were either completely omitted for good reason or even moved to a different part of the article to make it more coherent. Aviartm (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors have been warned for edit warring per another report of the same dispute on this board. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:194.56.199.160 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While the 4th revert isn't the same as the first two, it's repeating some of the third edit by replacing the visible text of Derry with Altnagelvin by changing Derry to Altnagelvin, which they did in the thiord edit only without the piping. FDW777 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Msasag reported by User:Za-ari-masen (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "More reliable. Plus the article for this script is called Bengali-Assamese script so it should match with that. And this language is written in Assamese alphabet in Assam and in Devanagari in Nepal, Bihar."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 976126608 by Za-ari-masen (talk) Should match with the article for this script. And it's linked too."
 * 3)  "In Assam, Assamese alphabet is used so it's not necessary to mention both alphabets I think."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 2)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 3)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 4)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 5)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 6)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 7)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 8)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 9)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 10)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 11)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 12)   "/* Writing system */"
 * 13)   "/* Writing system */"

Comments:

There has been a comprehensive discussion on the talk page but the user keeps edit-warring on the article despite warnings to include Bengali-Assamese script as the writing system and exclude "Bengali script" or "Bengali alphabet" from the infobox. Even the source doesn't support the edit the user is trying to include, so it's a source misrepresentation as well. The user is also involved in edit-warring on other articles as well. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I should say that. I'm maintaining the result we reached after discussions about on the name of the Bengali-Assamese script. I also provided a reliable source to my edit. But has been pushing his own views and creating chaos to the articles that mention the Bengali-Assamese script, he has been going against our discussion results. Msasag (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * :, the reporter, is the other party in this episode. , , . Chaipau (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't mislead editors, we didn't reach any result in the discussion. The source remains as a failed verification so you are simply misrepresenting sources and making unsourced changes. We are not discussing the dispute here, you have clearly violated the 3RR rule. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source isn't a failed verification. Maybe you couldn't understand what's written there. It calls the script Bangla-Asamiya which was being used for some of the KRNB lects that includes Rangpuri and closely related dialects. You even failed to understand the difference between "text" and "script". Msasag (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The article had "Bengali script" included in the infobox before the dispute started as the reliable sources like Ethnologue lists "Bengali script" as the writing system of Rangpuri language. Msasag brings an unpublished thesis that doesn't even explicitly support his edit and is changing the script to Bengali-Assamese. This has been explained numerous times but he kept edit-warring on the article and as it seems, has even violated 3RR. This edit-warring is part of a wider unsourced POV-pushing by that user in the related articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of the 4 edits of me on Rangpuri language, the first one was a revert of an edit made in 29 August by and today is 1 September. The 2nd one wasn't really a revert, I just removed the term Bengali alphabet (added by ) because the language is also written in Assamese alphabet in Assam and they are already included in Bengali-Assamese script. My 3rd and 4th edits were reverts of 's reverts.  made 3 reverts of the same thing, and the user made these edits while we were still discussing and the discussion was in favour of keeping the name as Bengali-Assamese script in the article. Msasag (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these are reverts because you tried to restore your preferred version that had "Bengali-Assamese script" as the writing system and excluded "Bengali script" or "Bengali alphabet" from the infobox. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The name of the script is decided as Bengali-Assamese script as a neutral term, because a term that favours one region and excludes others and also highly objected is unfair. The language is also spoken in Assam also and is written in the Assamese alphabet and this name is used by the users, as Assamese script (the term "Assamese script" is also mentioned in a lot of sources but we cannot favour such region specific terms to be the main term for the script). I even mentioned a reliable source for my edit, although the name of the script was already decided. Ethnologue in many cases, including this one is chaotic, which we discussed in the discussion with examples. So a study on this language by a linguist is a more reliable source. It is also worth mentioning that the name of the Bengali-Assamese script had been "Eastern Nagari script" a fully neutral term since 2007 untill March 2019 when objected and favoured Bengali. After discussions, we decided a less neutral term "Bengali-Assamese script". But even after that, the user  has been changing the term to Bengali script in various articles. We have to understand the matter that a neutral term is important for such controversial topics. There's no need to waste our time on these if we keep a neutral unified term. Msasag (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another off-topic tirade. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Msasag has made another three reverts today, , . Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." And those reverts are because you first removed a sourced edit that too with lie that the author consider Rangpuri and Rajbangshi as separate languages and that the source doesn't mention Rangpuri. While the author considered Rangpuri as another name for Rajbangshi and Rangpuri was mentioned as a dialect throughout the study. And the next two reverts are because you included two sources that claim a bit differently. Bengali alphabet (as well as Assamese alphabet, another alphabet used by the language) is already included in Bengali-Assamese script. User:Msasag (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AllSaintsNext reported by User:XXzoonamiXX (Result: Both warned)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: September 2020 Section

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: September 2020 Section

Comments: He continues to revert my edits despite the fact I have add citations as per requested and continuously think something's not right when I ask him to cite evidence (he didn't provide a single one to counter my claim). I gave a warning on his talk page and he responded by doing the same thing to my talk page [|talk page] for no reason than to get back at me. Talk page has gone nowhere by saying things that clearly has nothing to do with my arguments and some points, he says I don't have any cited sources despite the fact I did and told him that and now he just insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXzoonamiXX (talk • contribs)


 * @XXzoonamiXX: It looks like you both are engaged in an edit war. Now is a good time to stop trying to add the text to the article and instead discuss the matter at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775). —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To admins looking at this, please see the conversation on my talk page with this user to understand just their level of reading comprehension and inability to argue coherently. It is up to the user to provide reliable sources as citations when adding information to an article, this user repeatedly refuses to do so, inserting their own opinions and views in violation of NPOV. I’ve told them multiple times that their opinions are not supported by their “citations” and that they need to provide a source for them, of which they have refused to do so. I applied the edit warning on their talk page due to the fact that they literally are edit warring, not to “get back” at anyone. I have neither insulted this person either, not a single personal attack will be found. In fact, all you need to do is look through the users talk page archives to see just how many times they’ve been warned and reported and simply removed it from their own talk page. Users such as Binksternet and Nick-D attest to this on their talk page. I ask the user to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy before continuing to make such edits that include their personal bias, as Binksternet put it “if I see your name come up on my watchlist I know I have fixing and reverting ahead of me”. That is all.AllSaintsNext (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @AllSaintsNext: Since this isn't blatant vandalism, what exemption from 3RR are you claiming for your conduct? —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Namely the edits are in violation of NPOV, in fact the majority of the users recent edits, and a lot of past edits are in violation of this. Inserting claims such as “the us succeeded in obtaining most of the main objectives” of the war of 1812 with no evidence or citations in results of the war of 1812, is a key example of the users staunch opinions that they like to repeat. Admittedly I should have directed the user to the talk page sooner.AllSaintsNext (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't cite anything I have violated NPOV and your user talk page shows you have been barred for 24 hours on edit-warring with Nick D, you don't know me and my other users' argument so don't act like you're voucing for others users I have argued with.

Agree, I just want a clean page that has citations in support of the text, without bias opinion. Talk page is all good with me.AllSaintsNext (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is, at last check, in the status quo ante condition. If both parties are willing to take this matter to the article talk page (Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)), then no administrative action need be taken. If the parties do any future edit warring, then we can...provide administrative assistance to make sure they take it to the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to my comments so far, that makes me think you're not arguing in good faith and you're just removing my edits because it doesn't fit in your POV under the guise of me violating NPOV (and you have done yourself as well in [|military disasters] under this same argumentm which got you blocked for 24 hours). None of the article's reverts involves you citing evidence, in which is why you got blocked in the first place. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have communicated with both involved editors and reminded them of the need for discussion at the talk page to reach consensus. I have also advised them that if there is any further edit warring by either party after this point, it will be grounds for, at the least, a partial block from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User: MaxBrowne2 reported by User:Exxcalibur808 (Result: No violation)
Page: Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen '''User being reported: MaxBrowne2, Bzweebl

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&oldid=976050008
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&oldid=976440375
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&oldid=976428004
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&oldid=975898041

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garry_Kasparov#The_Greatest?: [diff]

Comments:

These two continue to engage in editing wars about chess players' historical all time standings despite the fact this has already been discussed before and no one took issue with it. Also despite the fact such information in the header of the article will be particularly useful to newer chess fans who are unable to interpret the accomplishments of the players in question.


 * Diffs show two separate editors who believe this claim should not be in the lead section of the article. Clearly neither is in violation of 3RR. The allegation in an edit summary that we are "alts" is false. Editor has not participated in any discussion at Talk:Garry Kasparov. Note the discussions at Talk:Magnus Carlsen, Talk:Bobby Fischer and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess, where the consensus clearly seems to be going against including "GOAT" claims in the lead of chess players' biographies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Exxcalibur808 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Editor has shown no intention of modifying their behaviour since last report and has continued edit warring on chess articles with pointless "greatest of all time" claims, despite the evolving consensus at WikiProject Chess that such claims, at any rate in the lead section of a biography, are unhelpful. Previous reports in which the same edit-warring pattern of behaviour and refusal to discuss was repeated: ;. In both cases the action taken by admins was unsatisfactory and as a result editor feels enabled to continue edit warring behaviour. Editor has also engaged in personal attacks on my user page:. Stronger action is required, including possibly a topic ban on chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Abetom reported by User:Zefr (Result: Semi-protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 976436838 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 976434604 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Etymology warring */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Etymology warring */ +"

Comments:

User is warring to re-establish an often-used, unsourced version of etymology example here, that the history of the article will show has been attempted and warred over - without a source or explanation - many times before. The edit used was originally (on 2 Sep) by an IP user - possible sockpuppet. No user talk page engagement, no article talk page engagement, no edit summaries were provided. User was warned for disruptive editing, yet persists to add unsourced, unexplained content to the article etymology section without discussion. Temporary block recommended. Zefr (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Another admin semi-protected the page yesterday. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:JIMBOB8 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 976709283 by Deor (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 976632718 by 55eo55 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 976558680 by 55eo55 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 976546782 by Deor (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 976546782 by Deor (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned on talkpage © Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 17:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've encouraged him to discuss this on the talk page, but sadly he has reverted again — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the edit-warring at Like I Can, Lay Me Down (Sam Smith song), and vandal-like edits at or, it's clear this user has no intentions to cooperate constructively. ©  Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 19:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have issued a 72-hour partial block from articles to JIMBOB8 and informed him that he needs to be willing to discuss. I did invite him to this conversation. Should he choose to revert, and go back to editing the same way after the block is up, that block will be moved to indefinite. Hopefully this will encourage the user to communicate. Red Phoenix <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  19:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:89MsHm reported by User:Maidyouneed (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

With regards to Demoyan in the reaction section.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

With regards to Documentation section


 * 1)  (removing unreliable source tag)
 * 2)  (reverting merge)

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

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

With regards to Demoyan in the reaction section.
 * 1) Talk:Guba_mass_grave

With regards to Documentation section
 * 1) Talk:Guba_mass_grave
 * 2) Talk:Guba_mass_grave

Comments:

User is restoring and maintaining their own preferred versions, without seeking consensus. With regards to Demoyan in the reaction section, the reversions are contrary to both prior (Talk:Guba_mass_grave) and current discussion (Talk:Guba_mass_grave). It seems the user is finding any possible rationalisations as a bludgeon for the reversions including having repeatedly using an Azerbaijani court prosecutor (Novatski ) from 1918 as an example of a foreign expert who investigated the site, when the site was only found in 2007. The user has previously had issues with editing other Armenian/Azerbaijani articles, and this looks to be a continuation: and. There is also the current separate issue raised with the user also on an Azerbaijani topic. Aspersions that apparently I just don't like the truth. User has threatened to make changes that apparently I won't "be happy about", unless I stop contributing. Maidyouneed (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have explained Maidyouneed (talk)'s interventions to the article are disruptive and harmful in the talk page (Talk:Guba_mass_grave). He tries to discredit the sources in the Documentation section of the article (Guba_mass_grave) while they are relevant to Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. Unfortunately, the reporting right has been weaponized by some users as a tool to discourage the opponent when they can't support their arguments with facts and sources. I also want to bring to the administrators' attention Maidyouneed (talk)'s edit warring and hope that the situation will be managed objectively. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Evidence does not show an actual 3RR violation though there is a long term dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaac Olek reported by User:Jackmcbarn (Result: indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/972236054

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/975189787
 * 2) Special:Diff/976137460
 * 3) Special:Diff/976279047
 * 4) Special:Diff/976280150
 * 5) Special:Diff/976742031

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/976280713

Comments:

Old AfC declines aren't supposed to be removed as long as the page still hasn't been accepted yet, as is clearly indicated by the inline comment  that's automatically placed on each. This user keeps doing so anyway (and also removed another user's in Special:Diff/970286373), despite the inline comment, the edit summaries of reversions, and a note on his talk page (which he blanked instead of responding to in Special:Diff/976280886). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . At this point, it seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:200.83.208.210 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

IP repeatedly trying to force POV edits into this article since mid-August. Pending changes were introduced a few days ago, but they have still continued; yesterday they tried four times, each time having to be reverted by a different editor.


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:39, 2 September 2020‎
 * 2) 12:56, 2 September 2020
 * 3) 15:28, 2 September 2020
 * 4) 23:38, 2 September 2020

Comments:


 * Result: No action. The article is PC-protected, and there have been no more reverts since 2 September. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User:37.134.86.24 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Semi)
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:


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User:209.204.192.16 reported by User:HeartGlow30797 (Result: )
Erra (band):

209.204.192.16:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE.  Heart  Glow (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:LTPHarry reported by User:217.46.140.35 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 217.46.140.35 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)

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

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

Comments:

I don’t think reporting me for something you don’t agree on (including sources) will work. There are no sources that specifically say that Disney is the distributor of 20th Century Studios movies. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This User Unfairly Undid My Edit Of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment And Should Be Banned For At Least 5 Months. 217.46.140.35 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: )
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:

Comments:


 * The reported editor keeps changing the finale date without any given reason. I told him that the reference in the article stated the show ended in May, but the reported user keeps changing the date. Prior to this,the reported editor was posting plenty of original research in the same article.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:HouseOfChange reported by User:2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (Result: No violation)
Hello. Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm new here. I was making an edit to the Wikipedia page for Devi Sridhar and User:HouseOfChange repeatedly kept reverting my changes with a different reason each time. Each time I made different edits resolving the issues he complained about in his messages but they were always reverted with a different reason every time. Sorry if I'm not following the right process here but it I don't think it's possible to achieve consensus when my changes keep being reverted on a blanket basis without discussion of why they are reverted.

User being reported:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  

2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP's initial edit added a paragraph of POV, OR, and SYNTH to Devi Sridhar, based on a blogpost whose title was "Devi Sridhar is not a medical doctor and is not qualified to give medical advice." (Quick backgrounder, Devi Sridhar, Rhodes Scholar, DPhil Oxford, heads the Global Public Health department at U Edinburgh.) After my first revert, the IP produced a longer paragraph, still citing the blogpost and adding more sources to bolster its claims, and added that to the article lead. I removed it from the lead, and since then, the IP has twice re-added that paragraph to the body of the article (removed once by me and once by.
 * Here are the diffs of my 3 reverts, including edit summaries:


 * "She leads U Edinburgh's program on Global Public Health, and some random's blogpost opinion is not RS for Wikipedia"
 * "The article lead summarizes the MOST IMPORTANT facts already in body of article"
 * "Discuss on Talk page per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS"
 * I also tried to explain my initial revert on the IP's talk page.
 * The paragraph is now under discussion at the Talk page, and perhaps I should have urged that in an earlier edit summary. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Both the IP and are at three reverts, so the talk page is the correct place for this to move forward. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Havsjö reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) November 2019
 * 2) February 2020
 * 3) 17:15 today
 * 4) 17:21 today
 * 5) 17:26 today
 * 6) 17:32 today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear breach of the bright-line rule with 4 reverts in less than 20 minutes. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Help! An administrator that has gone mad with power is abusing helpless users! After applying the "small" tag to a section of the South Africa infobox (to bring it in line with many other countries infoboxes), it was promptly reverted and I was told that it broke the style-guidelines. Well, I looked at the link provided, which stated: "Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. This [i.e. the previous sentence] means [i.e. the meaning of the previous sentence] that ["small" tags], should not be applied to already-reduced text within those elements [i.e. infoboxes etc]." After reverting back and informing how my edit did not reduce "already-reduced text" in an infobox, it followed the guidlines, I was just reverted saying I was wrong, when I explained in the same way as I did here, asking for an explanation as to what my edit was doing wrong, I was just reverted and reported. Still not sure what was wrong, but mad-with-power administrator need small targets to abuse, I suppose --Havsjö (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Admin abuse should be raised initially with the admin concerned, and then if unresolved raised at WP:ANI. See Administrators for guidance. You will need to take it to ANI as I see no abuse. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Havsjö. User:DrKay has not used any of his admin powers in this case, so I'm not sure what your issue is. As to the font size matter, why not use 'inspect element' in your web browser to confirm your diagnosis. My own browser thinks you were trying to modify a font within the infobox that was already reduced to 88% of full size. At first glance that would count as 'already reduced text' for the purposes of MOS:FONTSIZE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Havsjö is warned. They may be blocked if they revert changes that were made to enforce MOS:FONTSIZE, unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:108.192.156.142 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 977070735 by Mandelbr0t (talk) Please read the article linked. This is a constructive addition to the cases of historical revisionism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 977069173 by Mandelbr0t (talk) Vandalism."
 * 3)  "/* Cases of revisionism */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have undone the last revert by the IP to walk them back from 3RR, since there was an overlap of timing with the warnings being given. I have also made it very clear on the IP's talk page that if they revert again, they will get blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * . IP refused to discuss but instead reverted again. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:168.5.169.86 reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 977129984 by Awesome Aasim (talk) I did! Here is the transcript. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-pittsburgh-speech-transcript-august-31 There is condemnation of "right-wing militias" and "white supremacists" on the right, "senseless violence" generally, but absolutely no mention of Antifa. None whatsoever."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 976966559 by Awesome Aasim (talk) This is objectively a fact. The transcript is the proof, I hope other people on here see this isn't me "speculating." There is no specific condemnation of the extreme left, only of the extreme right and of general violence. To argue otherwise is to deny the facts."
 * 3)  "He mentions right-wing militias and white supremacists, but at not point does he condemn Antifa, which is responsible for the murder of a Trump fan in the middle of the street. Read the transcript for yourself, and you will see that he only specifically calls out violence from the right *by name*. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-pittsburgh-speech-transcript-august-31"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Sister Souljah moment."
 * 2)   "/*Quick note on Sister Souljah moment*/ Quick note"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sister Souljah moment."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I may have violated the WP:3RR here, but I am filing a report because I do not know what to do next. I do not want to engage in further edit warring, but nonetheless, the edits appear disruptive and contentious. I already explained to them that they cannot use the source because it is a blog, but they continue to instate the edit. I think either page protection or a block may be necessary. Aasim 03:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Brief Response: Hi Aasim, I just saw this! I just responded briefly in my talk page, but I will note that your explanation about the blog was posted *after* you reported me for multiple edits. I was not aware that your objection was to the blog until I received notice of the report. So anyways I posted a new source on my talk page and tried to explain my reasoning a little better. I hope that is helpful and we can resolve this agreeably. I'm new to Wikipedia so thanks for your patience. I won't edit the Souljah page again until this plays out, I don't want this to seem combative. Sorry about that! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.5.169.86 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! It may not be your intention, I prob should have given a clearer notice about it.  :) Aasim 07:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:6c50:6480:38a4:ac74:3c93:eda4:561f reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Protected and blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has recently begun using a slightly different IP address - he or she began with 2600:6C50:6480:38A4:54AF:EAD9:8960:1B56 and recently moved to 2600:6c50:6480:38a4:ac74:3c93:eda4:561f - so a small range block will likely be necessary. (This is pretty normal and common with IPv6 addresses and there is no implication of deliberate sockpuppetry or evasion.) ElKevbo (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor continues this disruptive behavior; can an administrator please step in to block him or her? ElKevbo (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * for a week and IP range blocked for a month.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:185.69.144.212 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baltimore&oldid=966551233 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baltimore&diff=977144448&oldid=977142831
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baltimore&diff=977149729&oldid=977148735
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baltimore&diff=977150325&oldid=977150002

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Here

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

Comments:

I have directed the OP to the talk page as they seem incapable of understanding what a reliable source is. They continuously add claims not supported by their sources, and they remove content without explanation. The existing text already has a clear source from the smithsonian: “when Napoleon abdicated in April 1814, Britain expected America would soon lose heart and surrender too. From then on, London’s chief aims were to bring a swift conclusion to the war, and capture as much territory as possible in order to gain the best advantage in the inevitable peace talks” - no source for “ceding territory” or the creation of a barrier state were in Britain’s 1814 spring strategy, simply ending the war as soon as possible as status quo. OP refuses to read the sources that already exist and deliberately adds text not supported. By the looks of it, this is the second time he has been on a 3RRR page within a week. 185.69.144.212 (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please forgive 185.69.144.212, he still haven't correctly cite any source nor the right interpretation that the British's aggressive strategy in the 1812 war was to restore the status quo and I already have my own book source to counter that. Unfortunately, 185.69.144.212 continues to remove my source in spite of not having counter-evidence that Britain's whole war goal was to restore a status quo and nothing else. The source 185.69.144.212 provided above doesn't distinguished between "capture" and "ceding" in terms of the circumstances of the 1812 war and the book I cited has absolute proof Britain's intentions was to seize as much territory as possible. However, 185.69.144.212 continues to revert my edit without regards to my book citation nor adding a new source that would collaborate his claim in his reverts. He doesn't seem to be aware that British strategy in the war was to conquer territory and demanded to keep such territory on the basis of Uti possidetis during negotiations in Ghent. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing admin, please see OPs comment as a perfect example of what they don’t understand about reliable sources and not using his own opinion.


 * OP states “he still hasn’t correctly cite any source nor the right interpretation that the British aggressive strategy in 1812 was to restore status quo” - this is wrong, what OP is claiming is that in 1814 after Napoleon being defeated that Britain didn’t want status quo and wanted to take territory, his source does not say this, and the existing source from the smithsonian explains quite clearly that Britain wanted the war over as soon as possible, and to simply maintain Canada. “British families wanted their menfolk home”.


 * OP goes on to state in his comment “removes my source in spite of not having counter evidence” again, wrong, the statement is ALREADY sourced.


 * OP states “the book I cited has absolute proof Britain’s intentions was to seize as much territory as possible” no it doesn’t? It’s a historians view, not “absolute proof” or anything close to it. Lambert, Hickey, and Stagg would disagree.


 * OPs finishing touch shows his bias: “he doesn’t seem to be aware that british strategy in the war was to conquer territory and demand to keep such territory” - what is OPs source for this? Again, historians greatly dispute this. OPs opinions have blinded him to sense. And has broke the 3 revert rule.185.69.144.212 (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You still have the nerve to ask for source despite the fact you don't seem to bother trying to read the book I cited and bought a while ago so until you cite a direct evidence to counter my claims and understand the proper wording, your argument is nothing more than a tactic of stalling me. Otherwise, we wouldn't have argued here. The source can be used to supplement the secondary source you mentioned and the book mentions a lot of details from British, American, and Canadian perspectives and notes in the war and the whole circumstances surrounding them. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * – User:XXzoonamiXX and User:185.69.144.212 are both blocked 48 hours for edit warring. It is unclear why the IP editor would file a report here when they were already over 3RR at the time. The IP has also been removing references. Both sides ought to be showing a lot more patience. XXzoonamiXX has a block history. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Amigao reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 977141331 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) The category is entirely consistent with the content of the article"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by CaradhrasAiguo (talk): The category is consistent with the content of the article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 977130168 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk)"

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

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

Comments:


 * 1) User has barely 30 edits in TALK namespace, largely page moves
 * 2) At Jing Lee, user has not engaged with either a ping, requests for discussion at their talk, or the DR/N request I filed.
 * 3) Oddly, user has never made a single edit to their own talk.

While no 3RR violation has occurred here, this could be a case of WP:RADAR given the general unresponsiveness documented (except when forced to at AN/I) above <span style="color:
 * 1) 8B0000">Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: 1: The amount of edits you have means nothing, your not more important or more valid for having more edits your just as important as any other editor, please do not act righteous. 2: This is edit war between you and another editor, you should first reach out and try to find a solution before immediately reporting them for breaking the 3 edit revert rule. 3: This editor in my opinion has engaged in edit warring. Vallee01 (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) A complete mis-representation. I am not comparing edit counts, merely demonstrating their lack of engagement in associated discussion namespaces (User talk and Article talk). 2) Do check the relevant talk page discussion ( where another user managed to chime in ) and aforementioned prior attempt at discussion before arriving at conclusions like that. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Colinmcdermott reported by User:Theoracle102 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

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

At first I reverted the change but also added more content to the links. This was immediately reverted, with revision comments claiming a PR campaign was being waged. I attempted to put a warning about putting ad-hominem attacks in the revision edit comments & talk section on both his page and the talk section. This includes accusing people of being shills, etc. I have stopped reverting his edits (including his last edit) as it entered warring territory.

I suggested moving the links here after my edit was reverted

 

The talk page section with the most recent ad-hominem attack here here 

Also, the user posted on my personal page telling me he will ignore "bullshit edits" to his page. Wikipedia articles are not owned by any user.  

I posted the warning about civility here 

Hey Theo, you utter dog turd. Let's quote from your Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theoracle102

"Hello.

Your are posting from a brand-new account. Your third post is this, where you copy/paste a warning to a more experienced editor's talk page. This warning was not appropriate, since that editor was nowhere near WP:3RR.

Since it's very unlikely that you, as a brand new editor, would be familiar with edit warring templates unless you had previously received them on some other page, please carefully review Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Using multiple accounts is usually prohibited, especially if it is to avoid scrutiny for things like edit warring.

If you are affiliated with The Blackstone Group, you should carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are compensated for editing that article, you must follow Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)"

For any admins that can see this, I can only assume you are also a $paid editor if you actually take this fake account seriously. Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Theoracle102 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . There are edit summaries with accusations toward other users that they're "shill accounts" and "from the PR firm" of the company. They're not constructive and this must stop. If you have a concern in this regard, there are noticeboards that handle this. State your concerns there and provide proper evidence to support them. As of right now, I don't find any indication or need to block any accounts, but I'm putting a gold lock on the front gate to facilitate and direct everyone involved to properly handle this dispute by discussing it on the article's talk page before this starts to get out of control.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Oshwah

Here are more diffs of direct personal attacks    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoracle102 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

User:86.148.39.66 reported by User:Meters (Result: Block, protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 977495430 by Meters (talk) This is blatantly not true and your "sources" are terrible. Block me, ban me whatever just know that you are spreading false infomation"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 977494704 by Meters (talk)"
 * 3)  "Sources don't prove the statement and it is blatantly untrue."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on American English."

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

Comments:

Ignored talk page discussion and multiple requests to discuss on talk page. Second IP in the last few days to edit war over the identical edit. See, , and  Meters (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked and page protected. Meters (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 01:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC) "not needed, this implies they thought they were actual bears as opposed to just naming them after bears due to the resemblance"
 * 2) 01:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC) "another user removed this too so the consensus is now against you."
 * 3) 13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC) "see talk"
 * 4) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 976849063 by Chris.sherlock (talk)" - This was not a removal of "innacurately" but it was a reversion nontheless.
 * 5) 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC) "better?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Comments:

has been edit-warring at Koala for the past 5 days, persistently removing "innacurately" from the lead. That lead to a discussion and then RfC on the talk page. However, he continues to remove the word, even after warnings. previously reverted one of LittleJerry's removals stating in his edit-summary RV to long term state. Per BRD if you want to pursue this, take it to the talk page, but that was ignored. After becoming involved in the discussion I reverted to the status quo, warning against more edit-warring in my edit summary, as well as on User talk:LittleJerry, but the talk page warning was removed. Today, despite the warning, LittleJerry once again removed "innacurately", resulting in this report. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend is acting in very bad faith. With the last edit I was being bold and did it part of a compromise. I did not merely remove "accurate", but arrange the wording to were it essentially said the same thing. My comment of "better?" should have been taken as clue but AussieLegend takes this as a great offense. Making a compromise such as this should not be taken as an "edit warring". I will refrain from more edits. LittleJerry (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I clearly did not violate the 3RR since I reverted, at most, twice within within a 24-hour period. LittleJerry (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you violated 3RR but you were clearly edit-warring. Your "bold edit" removed something that you had previously removed 3 times, being reverted each time. You clearly knew not to remove it and yet you did, after you had been warned not to edit-war! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Making a different, more compromising edit does NOT count as edit warring. You are being irrational. Are you really angry over the simply removal of a word while ignoring the substance of an edit? LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, my last edit was the result of an emerging consensus at the talk page see here, here, here and here which was to mention the "koala bear" name in the lede and how it isn't a bear. It should not have been taken in bad faith. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This is just sophistry. The fact is you edited an area of contention while an open RFC was still in existence on the matter. If anyone is acting in bad faith it would be the one who did that. A good faith editor would propose their change in the RFC as a possible solution, not just seek to impose their view as a fait accompli. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 22:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against editing while RFC is open. That's a rule you made up. Another user also edited an area of contention but as a constructive edit. The last edit I made was a constructive edit not a simple revert. And I have proposed a compromise at the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I never claimed there was a rule or policy about editing during an RFC, that is something you made up. What I meant and I'll state it again to make it clear, is that editing the area of contention during an active RFC is not a sign of good faith, quite the contrary.  So I don't think you are the person to be lecturing other editors about acting in good faith.  In addition, I don't trust your interpretation of consensus, since you seemed to think that two editors make a consensus (see here), so claiming my last edit was the result of an emerging consensus does not fill one with any confidence that there actually is an emerging consensus that says what you say it does.   _ <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  01:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided links to the emerging consensus here, here, here and here. And when I said two editors are against you that means that when you revert someone's edit which you did here, and another user reverts it back. That's two against you and you should back off which you didn't. A consensus CAN include two people if no ones else bothers to get involved (which someone did eventually). LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * More sophistry, totally ignoring the point. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 11:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have no point other than to reduce things to literal numbers. And you should have assumed good faith when I had "better?" as my edit summary. LittleJerry (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Making a different, more compromising edit does NOT count as edit warring. That's not how it works. Per WP:3RR, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." You have persistently reverting other editors by removing "innacurately". That's edit-warring.  is quite correct in saying editing the area of contention during an active RFC is not a sign of good faith, quite the contrary. It's especially true when part of your edit is to remove the word that is being discussed at the RfC. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are qouting from the section on the 3RR which I clearly did not violate. The "revert" was a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle done after these discussions,, , and . You are ignoring context and giving a vague defination of "edit war". Also the whole point of contention was whether we should note that the koala is not a bear, not merely about literally having the word "inaccurate".  LittleJerry (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not change the definition of a revert and again, nobody said you violated 3RR. However, you were clearly edit-warring. Your last edit conveniently restored a change that had been opposed by multiple editors and should not have been made, especially as there was no consensus for the change that you made. There will be no consensus until the RfC closes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said the debate is not about having the literal word "inaccurate" it's about whether we should note that the koala is not a bear. My edit still did that. It was a compromising edit. There was opposition to not mentioning it in the lede, it was not about the wording. Stop being literal. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:LittleJerry is warned for edit warring. No block since they did not continue to revert after this report was opened. All parties are advised to wait for the outcome of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User:178.40.138.30 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I literally sourced the text that you seem to have an issue with. Explain why do you constantly revert it in spite of sources being provided."
 * 2)  "Fixing dates."
 * 3)  "Also, per WP:ENGVAR, hyphenating north-east et al is allowed, especially on articles that explicitly use British English, such as this one."
 * 4)  "Restoring, sources added. I found no grammatical errors in my edits."
 * 5)  "Mečiar is the right-wing populist and kleptocrat here, not Dzurinda, in case you were confused by the sentence. And lead sections need not have citations if the material is already covered in the article's body. Other than that, my revisions are fully compliant with Wikipedia policy and the MOS, so I don't understand why do you continue to unillaterally revert my edits, even restoring old errors and typos in the process. "I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason, by the way."
 * 6)  "I am sorry, but your revert has been wholly unhelpful. You have erased a large swathe of content improvements, and have restored several errors and typos in the process. Keep in mine that these revisions were accepted after review and were present for days before Peter decided to remove them on a whim, without citing any relevant Wikipedia policy, and is most likely a case of "I just don't like it". If you still object, let's discuss on the talkpage."
 * 7)  "Paragraph merging per MOS."
 * 8)  "Rv inadequately justified removal of content."
 * 1)  "Paragraph merging per MOS."
 * 2)  "Rv inadequately justified removal of content."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User talk:178.40.138.30 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor not willing to engage us on the talk page. Cant move forward with them so time to go Moxy 🍁 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I've been notified of a discussion related to an edit war on Slovakia. Pardon me for the whirlwind of reverts. I've let myself got carried away and the reasons for my edits being reverted were often vague, and sometimes incorrect (For example, "north-east" was declared a grammatical error even though Slovakia uses British English, and WP:ENGVAR allows regional spellings of English), and I did provide three relevant sources to the text regarding Vladimír Mečiar and Mikuláš Dzurinda, and yet I was reverted in spite of said sources, and to make matters worse, no article talkpage discussion was started, even though I did invite the relevant editors to one if they have any remaining objections. Once again, I apologize for my rash reverts, and I hope for a constructive resolution of this dispute on the article's talkpage.178.40.138.30 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. This IP has gotten into a lot of turmoil in their rather short history on WP. I took into account the partial apology above, but I don't see any evidence yet that the IP can make plain old content contributions that don't rock the boat. The eloquent edit summaries that include Wikipedia acronyms suggest that the user may have been here before. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)