Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive417

Sthacker21 reported by User:Pennsylvania2 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

'''Comments: Person keeps adding a photo of Tim Scott and replacing John Thune. He has not stopped even when taken to talk page'''

Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours, per the user's promise to keep edit warring, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:117.5.215.61 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:117.5.215.61

Comments:

This editor only has fourteen edits, all to this article, in the past four days and all basically making the same edits after having been reverted by multiple different editors. Aspects (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Karlmontague reported by User:XXeducationexpertXX (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None


 * I'm not going to decline this here since I've been slightly involved, but there's definitely not 3RR violation here, and it's a little disingenuous to list 6 diffs here when several of these are consecutive edits. Really he's made 3 sets of edits, not 6 as the bullet points might suggest.  Your edits there seem to be making an edit war where none needs to exist. only (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The user has absolutely violated 3RR. See the reverts above. Further, the user has refused to use the talk page despite being asked to do so. only hasn't even been "slightly involved" with this dispute. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said: your list of reverts is disingenuous as it includes consecutive edits without another user in between. Those consecutive edits count as one revert, not as individual reverts.  This one is a revert of himself!  I don't think you really understand the 3RR baed on your report and comments here.  only (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Karlmontague is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. As User:Only has noted, this is not a 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. I kept posting my reasonings to XXeducationexpertXX's talk and he would simply delete them. I am not sure if I understand what you mean of getting consensus. I am happy that this be ruled on by people who are not biased on behalf of a clearly bogus photoshopped shield made by XXeducationexpertXX which is a mishmash of Columbia College logo, the Seal of the University, and the Shield: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_Shield.png When Columbia officially publishes its visual identity (Blue290: http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf) I don't see whether there can be a dispute here or not. Karl Montague (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:135.19.91.161 reported by User:Ezhao02 (Result:Semi protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Coalition Avenir Québec."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Coalition Avenir Québec."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP editor has hijacked references for the political position. (They say center-right, but this editor keeps changing it to centrist). I have refrained from reverting the last edit for fear of violating WP:3RR. Also, this may be the same editor as User:204.48.94.16. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no actual justification to include this material on this page; per talk page discussion preliminarily hiding the information anticipating any confirming information showing that 进 and 党 are used in the native communication of the society where this organization operates."
 * 2)  "Including this information as if it  were part of the legal or political system of Taiwan is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT that cannot be overruled by any CfR. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The forms including 进 and 党 are documented on Wiktionary (linked). It is undue weight to add extra forms here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 981223589 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk)"
 * 1)  "There is no actual justification to include this material on this page; per talk page discussion preliminarily hiding the information anticipating any confirming information showing that 进 and 党 are used in the native communication of the society where this organization operates."
 * 2)  "Including this information as if it  were part of the legal or political system of Taiwan is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT that cannot be overruled by any CfR. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The forms including 进 and 党 are documented on Wiktionary (linked). It is undue weight to add extra forms here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 981223589 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ stop."
 * 2)   "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ ."
 * 3)   "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ disruptive, GI has been warned"
 * 4)   "/* Display of simplified characters in Template:Infobox Chinese at ROC articles */ link to opened discussion"
 * 5)   "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ new section"

Comments:

I regretfully make this report, but Geographyinitiative has been continuing to edit war (involving ) their preferred version of the infobox into the article, after the expiration of by  (AN3 report).

They have continued their WP:IDHT behavior at the talk page, where they have ignored the repeated explanations that the consensus of this MOS RfC (further clarified here) is to include both forms of Chinese characters in infoboxes. They have also refused suggestions of opening an RfC over this particular article. — MarkH21talk 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The characterization that I have violated an RfC consensus is not actually correct. The RfC specifically stipulates that there are exceptions to the general rule. I have introduced changes to Wikipedia based on the actual situation in Taiwan that are not viewed positively in some quarters and have been attacked, especially last week, on English Wikipedia and Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia- attempted takedowns of thirty images related to Taiwan, and on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, slanderous accusations about my character from an IP deeply familiar with my edit history. I understand if there is a need to block me, but I am not actually violating any specific wording in any RfC. It's a borderline case that is under discussion (if you were to view it from the perspective of that RfC). When I have asked for further clarification from other users about what they with respect for a future RfC they proposed I make, I get "you're just anti-PRC China". It's not really true, but it's a good strawman to make of me. I am clearly enriching Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and the other editors in question are too, but they have drawn the line here for some reason. As for charges of editing warring itself, I think I'm clearly implementing Wikipedia NPOV and not a dictionary policies, but if that's not true, I would like to get a specific opinion on this question from an administrator: what do I need to do to get NPOV implemented on the Democratic Progressive Party page? Who should I contact to make a request in this area? I was merciful and friendly to an editor who wanted to take down the thirty images I uploaded about Taiwan, but that friendliness can't be extended back toward me despite the fact I'm a long-term user- I'm just an evil bastard with wrongthink. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (modified, rewritten after comment below)
 * I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you, but the RfC and its clarification said that you need case-by-base consensus for each exception (which is not there for this article). The bigger issue is that you have been: This is independent of whatever you're experiencing somewhere else. — MarkH21talk 02:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You yourself don't agree with including the extra foreign language terminology on that page. You said as much on my talk page. Come on now- there is clearly room for discussion about this exception. I tried to get clarification on what Carhardas wants me to RfC, but the user just slandered my character or intellect again. You can say negative stuff about the PRC and not be biased against it. You can say negative stuff about the USA and not be biased against it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is what I'm going to do. Block me however you feel necessary. That's not the real issue: I can respect a real decision against my viewpoint. But I'm going to submit this issue to some kind of NPOV board or higher body or something on Wikipedia and get an official decision rather than more straw mans and one-sided conversations with Caradhas. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I discussed this with you several times and you responded with the same exact thing every single time. I suggested  and  suggested three times  that you open an RfC for this particular article if you still believe that it should be an exception to the MOS rule, but instead you have repeatedly reverted. — MarkH21talk 03:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the material in question to the page in question, but in addition, I have added an NPOV flag and made specific points about it on the discussion page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action, since Geographyinitiative self-reverted., please follow WP:DR. Salvio 07:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:HADRIAN DID NOTHING WRONG reported by User:Paul Carpenter (Result: Partial block)


This user has repeatedly changed date formats against consensus on First Jewish–Roman War, having been reverted 8 times. Has made no other edits has had the reason for reverts explained to them but has claimed that other editors RV's are "vandalism" in edit summaries, again, after already having had WP:NOTV pointed out to them. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him from editing that article for two weeks and am off to leave him a stern warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:204.48.94.16 reported by User:Ezhao02 (Result: Semi protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Coalition Avenir Québec."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP editor has hijacked references for the political position. (They say center-right, but this editor keeps changing it to centrist). I have refrained from reverting the last edit for fear of violating WP:3RR. Also, this may be the same editor as User:135.19.91.161. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:5.173.248.54 reported by User:Rja13ww33 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:   

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user was warned on his/her talk page to stop the reverting and take it to talk. They have clearly violated 3RR. If someone could speak to them, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IP user was already blocked by for WP:DE  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They were not blocked at the point I reported them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:April Melanie Smith and User:Chewings72 reported by User:Matthewrbowker (Result: Block, semi, warning)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

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: N/A, I am not involved in the dispute.

Comments:

I came across this article during my Huggle work, and it really needs to be untangled. There are multiple users attempting to revert each other. I'm up to 3 reverts by April, 4 reverts by Chewings72, and three additional reverts by IPs attempting to keep April's content. I am not involved. ~ Matthewrbowker  Comments ·  Changes 19:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As readers will be aware from my actions and advice to User:April_Melanie_Smith (as noted by User:Matthewrbowker), this user has ignored my advice and requests to stop including changes that are clearly the user's POV and not based on any reliable sources. The user has continued to ignore my advice and has not provided any comments to support her changes or to argue that my reverts are incorrect.  Chewings72 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made one last attempt to return the article to a stable version. To avoid any possible accusation that I am breaching the 3RR rule, I will not make any further attempts to stop User:April_Melanie_Smith's further actions.  Thanks Chewings72 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – User:April Melanie Smith is blocked 48 hours for edit warring. I've also semiprotected Manchukuo for a month. If the editor April Smith wants to completely overhaul Wikipedia's account of the temporary state of Manchukuo they need to get consensus on the talk page. User:Chewings72 should avoid crossing 3RR even if he believes he is reverting disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Kacziey reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Edit summary by Kacziey: "/* Reception */Unexplained edit warring POV push by daveout and removing large RS including Washington Post NY magazine etc."
 * 2)  Edit summary by Kacziey: "Added The Independent 2017, and back to version before Daveout’s unexplained reversión and edit warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit war across several days with User:Daveout. Both have warned eachother, kept reverting each other and adding then removing disputed content.  NonsensicalSystem (err0r?)(.log) 10:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I explain my edits in talk of that page.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Talk:Glenn_Greenwald
 * See (also) this example:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald&diff=prev&oldid=980615544
 * I have included around 8 sources with original quotes, while Daveout edits original texts from source or just plain removes to fit his POV. I gave it a “rest” (Sep.27) of more than a day after he “promised” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald&diff=prev&oldid=980621905 he will write something which is “feasible”, yet he did not but just left his vandalized version. Regards. Kacziey (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I first encountered Kacziey while he was trying to claim that journalist Greenwald is a “passionate defender of Antifa”, based on a primary source, a twit written by Greenwald that says this: If you express any criticisms of Antifa, then it proves you're pro-fascist because the word literally means: "anti-fascist"! Just like those who supported the Patriot Act were patriots; those who didn't were unpatriotic, because it was literally called the *PATRIOT* Act. Greenwald is obviously being IRONIC here (he’s a critic of antifa and the patriotic act). Then, Kacziey went on to The Intercept’s page to label Greenwald far-left and anti-israel. A discussion started on its talk page, with many user noting the use unreliable sources as well as the sources not using unequivocally the term “far-left” to refer to Greenwald. Then he went to greenwald’s page again to say that he was criticized by his “anti-vax” views. This is what the source actually says: it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left. A comparison is drawn between those two issues (anti-vax and russia-gate), but they are separate things. The author just wanted to illustrate that some issues attract both the left and right, it doesn’t mean greenwald has an opinion on the anti-vax thing. \\ I also want to point out that 1) Kacziey wasn’t reverted solely by me, he was reverted by other users and by an anti-vandalism bot, 2) other editor asked him to stop edit-warring on his talk-page but he deleted those messages. 3) at least 2 users thanked me for reverting him. \\ This user clearly has some text interpretation issues along with POV pushing behavior, he should be topic-banned on the basis of WP:CIR. Thanks.  -   (talk)  14:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , while I'm sympathetic, User:Kacziey is a new user (179 edits; 1st edit 23 September) and should get a certain amount of latitude. That said, they've been pretty aggressive at Glenn Greenwald.  I've placed two Discretionary sanctions alerts on Kacziey's talk page, informing them of WP:ArbCom rulings in WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBAP. Hopefully that will defuse the situation, and reduce any edit warring, which should adhere to WP:1RR. Note that that applies to all editors on the article.
 * As far as specific comments about left/right, anti-vax, or anything else, all that is a content dispute, and AN3 isn't going to get involved in that. Everyone should adhere to WP:BLP and WP:1RR. New users should be aware that getting involved in articles under ArbCom sanctions as one of your first articles at Wikipedia is going to be tougher than at most other articles, and though you'll get some latitude as a new user, once informed, you'll be expected to follow the policies and guidelines like everyone else. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should've also pinged . Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I myself are uninvolved not including the report. If it continues any further I'll put something up on the dispute noticeboard.  NonsensicalSystem (err0r?)(.log) 11:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I should perhaps have included this at the outset, to make my role clear: . Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Probably should wait for result before taking any more steps then.  NonsensicalSystem (err0r?)(.log) 11:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me (i hope that will be enough). thanks for taking a look at this. -   (talk)  13:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement on the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Resource sharing reported by User:180.241.205.155 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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: [diff]

Comments: I believe this user conduct edit warring with adding unsourced or questionable source in Medes article. I tend not to report that user to AIV because edit warring that occured by this user is not vandalism. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Now blocked indef by User:Salvio giuliano for tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:173.175.21.168 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Advice)
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: n/a; the editor is edit warring to delete his or her comments in the Talk page

Comments:

No comments; this is very straight forward. ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The user agreed with your edits and made a note that Wikipedia guidelines were followed by changing the user's mind and within a short time period. Warnings are accepted and agreed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You have done no such thing and you have continued to edit war not only in the article about the edit that was originally discussed in Talk but also to remove your comment in the middle of the Talk page discussion. I don't know what your game is but you need to stop or be prevented from disrupting the work of other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree not to delete if there is a comment made after a comment. Unaware of that specific guideline and will follow in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No block, since the IP editor has agreed to stop removing their replied-to comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Singapore–United States relations

Comments:

The edit warring, disruption, and personal attacks continue at Singapore–United States relations, Telsho resumed edit warring mere moments after their previous block for edit warring expired. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussions on the talk page which ended more than a a month ago about improving the article are unrelated to the diffs and not the same material whatsoever, which I had clearly stated in the edit summary and adhering my best to WP:ROWN. Constantly claiming "no consensus" and lumping different topics together is hardly a valid reason for you to revert and claim I'm "edit warring" when I was consecutively restoring part of a reverted edit. Notwithstanding that I never violated 3RR in the first place, I'm not the one initiating edit wars here, you clearly refused to read. Also please specify exactly where and when I "personally attacked" you. Thanks. Telsho (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you review the diff I actually claimed editorializing and undue weight as the reasons for reverting you ("Get consensus, there appears to be a lot of editorializing in there that isn't strictly supported by the sources given. The weight is also undue, the incident merits a paragraph at most."). You do need to get consensus but not having consensus is not the base justification for the revert. Please tell the truth. Anytime you baselessly accuse a wikipedia editor of "spewing personal opinions” instead of going by the sources its going to be interpreted as an attack. Also just FYI that talk page discussion is still active, it isn't closed or “ended" and consensus hasn’t been reached. How about we ping in and you can ask them if they feel that the take page discussion has ended with a consensus? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Telsho is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Singapore–United States relations unless they've obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Telsho was blocked 48 hours as recently as 25 September per a prior complaint at this board. If Telsho continues with this ongoing pattern, admins may need to take some action. The editor can't blame all of these disputes on other people. Telsho is archiving their own talk page every 24 hours and it is evident why that is necessary. User:El_C wrote to them on 25 September, "Look, Telsho, you can't keep going like this. It is unsustainable." EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Shiv issar reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 981495502 by MrOllie (talk) Per talk section. Apologies for the edits to the "Talk" section - I'm still learning how to edit Wikipedia. :)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 981494671 by MrOllie (talk) Per talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 981354881 by MrOllie (talk) Unjustified omission."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 981352124 by MrOllie (talk) This is beginning to look like the emergence of a bias against my edits. A few relevant citations doesn't indicate "citespam". Call for a mediation, if you must."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 979901562 by MrOllie (talk) Not cited any source for "concept being around since the 1960s". "Government by algorithm" or "Algocratic governance" is a specific analytical category."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Primary sourced claim of first use */"

Comments:
 * Both and  should consider this a warning. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SanAnMan reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (while this diff does not revert the same type of edit, it is the same idea of insisting that the episode is not part of season 24)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In addition, they have called edits that call the episode the season 24 premiere unconstructive and vandalism and removed warnings on their talk for AGF and 3RR

I agree with above. SanAnMan is doing the same over removing time and time again despite justification information about the show's availability on other platforms, categorizing incorrectly as "reruns." Nearly every TV show page on wikipedia talks about streaming availability, with many episode pages doing the same for key milestones. Fdsoisdfojsdlj (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * can you provide diffs? I believe you, but providing diffs for your separate incident will definitely help give some sort of sanction to SanAnMan. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How do I do that? Took me 5 minutes to figure out how to sign my name. Fdsoisdfojsdlj (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Go into any page's history, and you'll see a blue word next to each edit that says either prev or diff. Click on that, then copy the link, then put it between one pair of these —-> [ ] brackets in an edit onto this page. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I had placed a WP:RPP on this article about a day before the editing wars started because I knew it would be a point of contention as to whether or not the episode was a special episode or the season premiere. I had cited at least 6 or 7 reliable sources, including the official press release from South Park Studios, that all confirmed one after another that this episode was a special and that it was not the season premiere. I even explained on the talk page of the article why this was so when the question was first brought up on the talk page. There was overwhelming confirmation from multiple reliable sources that all supported the view that this episode was a special and was not a season premiere. Nonetheless, unconfirmed editor after unconfirmed editor kept insisting that it was the season premiere (some without any justification whatsoever), and most of them were using a near-identical edit summary when changing the article. They were also using just one or two identical links to video feeds to justify their stance, none of which were anywhere near as reliable as the sources cited. Since I saw so many unconfirmed editors/IP-only editors using the same summary and making near-identical edits to the article, I (mistakenly) assumed that this was a case of sock-hopping and just started reverting as vandalism until the page could be protected (which it now has at this time of my comments). You will note that the reversions listed in this complaint are almost all from IP-only or unconfirmed users with practically no previous edit history. So I admit that I mistook User:Unnamed anon as another one of these hopping vandals. However, it should be pointed out that this user has only had about three months of edit history and has already had multiple contentions with both other users and admins during that timeframe.


 * As for User:Fdsoisdfojsdlj's statements about the streaming services, I was going by the long-term history of other South Park episode articles that never even mentioned anything about streaming services; I felt his argument of "Nearly every TV show page on wikipedia talks about streaming availability" was a dictionary definition of WP:OSE. The streaming service information has been documented on the main South Park article, and I did not feel it was worth repeating on a single episode review.


 * And as for removing Unnamed's comments from my talk page, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING I am allowed to perform any edits or removals I choose to on my own talk page, and, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." (quoted from OWNTALK) - SanAnMan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this particular report (my one below about QuestFour still stands). The source SanAnMan gave that came directly from Comedy Central is infinitely more reliable than the sources currently on the page, and I will replace those sources with the one they gave. Thanks  for giving this particular source; I am now in agreement with you that this is considered a special episode, and am willing to see the source I was giving as a mistake based on your arguments on the talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback. The source I gave here was already in the article once, just not in the place where you added it, so I just fixed your edit so that the cite isn't listed twice. Just trying to help. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Complaint withdrawn by User:Unnamed anon. Thanks to them for the withdrawal and to User:SanAnMan for the explanation, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AleviQizilbash reported by User:Thhings6sz (Result: ECP implemented)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:First 3 edits/diff were within 24 hrs. I see he has deleted edit war warning posted by others on his talk page.


 * Comment - Not sure exactly how to do this (I only have 1,000 edits to Wikipedia, and I mostly mind my own business editing articles of all sorts). But in my brief encounters with AleviQizilbash,   The name-calling and the spontaneous generation of conspiracy theories would be funny, if this were a comedy sketch.  But, it's not.  It's an encyclopedia project.  If we could be rid of him (or at least his belligerent attitude), the Wikipedia community would be better served. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've redacted a rather egregious personal attack from your comment; there is no amount of vandalism or poor behavior that would ever make such a comment appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 21:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * by, which should be enough to end the dispute. Both parties edit warred far beyond what is acceptable, but blocking at this point would be purely punitive. signed,Rosguill talk 21:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:47.197.54.139 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are enumerated items in the POV talk section that explore the lack of neutrality in this article.  Address the concerns there.  Undid revision 981583084 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 2)  "Address the issues in the Talk page.  I dispute the neutrality ofUndid revision 981578678 by Mvbaron (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please address your concerns in the Talk page under th POV section per WP policy.  This article is biased.  We will label it as such until the issues are resolved. Undid revision 981576705 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)"
 * 4)  "Please abide by Wikipedia policies and not revert this POV tag without reaching consensus in the Talk page.  That you disagree is not sufficient grounds.  Undid revision 981565019 by Newimpartial (talk)"
 * 5)  "Adding POV tag back.  There is active discussion about the POV nature of this article per the conversation in Talk by user Bereginia.  POV was also a core issue raised by Fictualinfidel's RfC, and POV is a core issue addressed by myself in "Anti-Semitism as an Essential Quality."  The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory which reliable sources consistently describe as antisemitic and pseudo-intellectual. The IP proposes that "credence" should be given to this theory, and is now edit warring to add a POV template against consensus.

On the article's talk page, the IP says "I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 20+ years, and I'm well-versed in the conventions here" but has ignored warnings against edit warring and has reverted five editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding this statement "This article is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory which reliable sources consistently describe as antisemitic and pseudo-intellectual. The IP proposes that "credence" should be given to this theory, and is now edit warring to add a POV template against consensus.
 * Nothing about my communications has suggested this theory be given credence. There is also not consensus that this article is NPOV. So I'm not edit warring against consensus. There are at least three other editors who have called this article out as POV in the last three weeks. The Talk section on that topic contains only substantive examples of that lack of neutrality and no replies from the editors in question.
 * On the article's talk page, the IP says "I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 20+ years, and I'm well-versed in the conventions here" but has ignored warnings against edit warring and has reverted five editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The editors in question have not engaged to the POV discussion section and are reverting the POV tag even though there are multiple editors decrying the article's lack of neutrality. I have opened a Dispute Resolution request as I believe they are not engaging to the editorial process in good faith.47.197.54.139 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

One additional comment here: It was not my intention to edit war. I'd asked these editors to engage to the neutrality issue (enumerated in Talk), and they'd reverted the POV tag without doing so. The POV issue is one that has been raised by multiple editors.

Regardless I wasn't thinking about 3RR, so that's my fault. Had an individual editor reverted my revert I would have stopped cold - but since 4 problem individuals each did so I wasn't thinking about 3RR. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to being called a "problem individual" :) Mvbaron (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From their statement they knew about 3RR even before the warning. And of course we know nothing about previous warnings, blocks, etc they may have had. Doug Weller  talk 11:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Archives908 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) (pre vandalism)

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: reverted my 5 times, including an ip user 3 times. My edits were restored contents which were removed by other users. He also changed Azerbaijan map into Armenia which is clearly POV pushing. Please check his edits. Beshogur (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)


 * This is untrue and unfair. The IP editor is completely separate from you, they added unexplained and unsourced material, for which it should have been removed. You seemed to build on the IP editors edit, also without much explanation. The issue was then brought to the articles respective talk page, which is the next logical step. You however (before engaging in conversation with me) were quick to point fingers and report. This is inappropriate on all levels. Reviewers, please bear in mind that there is no edit war like Beshogur is suggesting. I have simply restored the article to the original state before unsourced information was added/removed. Furthermore, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the respective article, which I for one, would hope any issues can be resolved amicably, with logic, and consensus. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to manipulate administrators. He added content, I checked Russian wikipedia where it possible came, and I added a source. Beshogur (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Manipulate?! I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. As we speak, the Stepanakert article is being vandalized by IP vandals. You do realize that there is a conflict going on, right? Over the past few days, I have been diligently monitoring vandalism and removing unsourced content as necessary. That is what a good editor does. As I mentioned earlier, you neglected to make clear your concerns, or even allow me the opportunity to contribute to a discussion. Rather, you reported me instantaneously. That is against the spirit of what this encyclopedia is built on. For the second time (and let me make this abundantly clear) there is nothing stopping either of us to resolve whatever issue you have, amicably, on the talk page. Out of concern, I also believe that the article should be protected as the recent wave of vandalism is unacceptable. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * while several reverts were made, they were all made in immediate succession, rather than being back-and-forth edit warring between editors. As far as 3RR is concerned, that counts as a single revert. That having been said, this edit in particular appears poorly justified, and should probably be addressed on the talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 981652598 by Khirurg (talk) No one cares about your thinking, take your concern to the noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TRT_World"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 981648061 by Khirurg (talk) Not reliable? It says reportedly if you wonder"
 * 3)  "rv"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2020 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts within 24 hours and two minutes. Also hostile and aggressive edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There are 3 reverts in 24 hours, nothing wrong. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is Gaming of the 3RR restriction. Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On top of that, Beshogur, your sources are time and time again not reliable and your edit tactics are inappropriate. Do you understand that this is unacceptable behaviour? Khirurg, oddly enough Beshogur has unjustly reported myself and Գարիկ Ավագյան above for similar issues that he, himself is doing. I truley hope that the Admins are paying attention to this! Archives908 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not on purpose. Beshogur (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now you are apologetic? I don't think that will fool the Admins. You have a clear agenda, and it has been exposed. Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , this being their second 3RR violation (in addition to other DS blocks related to edit warring). I'll also note that TRT World definitely should not be considered a reliable source for claims related to Nagorno-Karabakh, as Turkey is not a disinterested party. signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:EuanHolewicz432 reported by User:SnapSnap
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:EuanHolewicz432 first attempted to insert controversial content (which had already been previously disputed) to the article late last month. After being reverted by me and another editor, EuanHolewicz432 started a talk-page discussion, where most of the responses opposed and/or questioned the insertion of said information. A week later, User:ToeSchmoker restored the disputed content, although no clear consensus has been established. After being once again reverted by me and another editor, both ToeSchmoker and EuanHolewicz432 continued to restore the disputed content—the former insisted that consensus had been reached based on "previous edits made to include it", while the latter accused me of "political bias". I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of sockpuppetry (EuanHolewicz432 and ToeSchmoker are both seemingly new users).  snap snap  (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me start by addressing out the closing accusation; apparently another editor thinks themselves a detective (I had already been falsely accused of "making edits while logged out"), finding me in other users who simply share my viewpoint. I am not ToeSchmoker and I am sure an administrator can attest to that claim via digital evidence once the matter is noticed. I think this also serves as a microcosm of the wider issue at play here; you are seemingly unable to see other editors at eye to eye, apparently assuming that I must be some conspirator hellbent on inserting two words into the biography of a long-gone woman for no clear reason - that I do not pursue truth and accuracy as the rest of this site's editors do. It is evident in the way the discussion was held on the talk page - I simply reiterated my claim of wanting to represent the truth of the matter, something that is shared by many editors who sadly did not seek to pursue the matter further. Your argumentation was a Gish-gallop of unrelated policy and belittling the contributions and value of IP users. All that said, I would like to extend my hand in a gesture of goodwill and apologize for my claim re. your "political bias" - it was wrong of me to assume bad faith and I can only request that you apply the same thought processes to me. With that in mind I still fail to see the "big issue" and how the content is "controversial" in the first place and I would also request that - if you still are willing to dispute a change - you engage in dialogue with the other editors rather than seemingly dropping the subject, only pursuing it when the article is edited; this makes it appear as if engaging with other editors is purposefully avoided as a means to maintain the status quo and leads to situations such as the one that took place this very day. Nevertheless I await the issue's resolution. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Գարիկ Ավագյան reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Not per se edit warring but 3RR violation. Especially the international reaction map was removed without a consensus. He claims this is the consensus by other users. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Why_are_Kazakhstan_and_Kyrgyzstan_coloured_as_supporting_Azerbaijan_in_Reactions_section? Here] has explained that Turkic Council is not a NGO but a supranational organisation. Here you can see that the same method was used here for Turkic countries (except Azerbaijan). Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I've been waiting for this. First of all, my edits are explained. About the biased map, on the map, countries that expressed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan in hostilities, while the whole world, including Armenia itself, recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. On the other hand, you can support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but condemn military action. Paradox, no? Also, countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan. A CSTO member cannot speak for the support of the opposite side, in which case he will lose his membership. The map is biased and propagandistic. Not surprised on this warning from an experienced user. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here it says: "In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan." How is this propagandistic? Did this statement happen without the consent of other Turkic Council members? I doubt. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you think that there is no difference between the Turkic Council and MFA of other countries? Anyway, support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not = support military action. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the map's talk page, I said that they should have different shade of colour. But support of territorial integrity is indeed a support, did not see coming from other countries. I do not want you to be blocked, but you reverted others different times. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Գարիկ Ավագյան, it seems Beshogur is hellbent on getting "his way, or no way". Admins, please take a look at the talk page on Stepanakert, he has unjustly reported myself for monitoring/reverting recent vandalism. He is refusing to talk reasonably and make his concerns clear on the talk page..even after 3 requests. This behavior is not acceptable. Archives908 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update- I have now politely asked him 4 times to make his concerns clear. Archives908 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know perfectly. This is not the first time when users of Turkish-Azerbaijani origin are trying to suspend users who write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editings for their biased edits. I've already reported to the administration. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Գարիկ Ավագյան. I agree, this user's Anti-Armenian agenda is becoming ever more clear. Feel free to link your report to the Stepankert talk page if you haven't done so already. Perfect example of not willing to respectfully communicate with other editors, among others. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * for 3RR violation, although for what it's worth it looks like the dispute over the map specifically is currently no consensus leaning against inclusion, and my understanding is that the status quo ante is to not include the map. signed,Rosguill talk 22:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion about this. As the creator of the map that was part of the polemic, I am forced to defend myself despite having said that I did not want to participate in any debate about this. Due to, in my opinion, an unfair result, I must speak up. The user Beshogur has been accused of the alleged bias of the map when he has not edited it once. Second, only judging by Beshogur's actions in the conflict article (I don't know about any other edits elsewhere) I see no reason for blocking by anti-Armenian because he has tried to put forward his arguments and debate the issue while the user Գարիկ Ավագյան has not. I do agree with Rosguill that it is better to maintain the status quo. Regards, KajenCAT (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Gooduserdude reported by User:Havsjö (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=972467485

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981587701&oldid=981491401
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981608924&oldid=981597876
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981613703&oldid=981612704
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981614489&oldid=981614306
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981428965&oldid=981333061

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

Comments: For the page regarding future plans to merge Germanic area of Europe into some form of a Pan-Germanic state by the Nazis, Gooduserdude has included a country-infobox. Explanations that such a "strictly defined" infobox is unsuitable for such a loosely planned entity in a article discussing the sum of various plans towards that end falls on deaf ears. The infobox is not only therefore out of place, but contains no actual information, just regurgitation from a Nazi Germany infobox; repeating flag, leader and even driving side(!) It contains no actual information except for a previously existing map and vague proposals synthesized from the article content as the dates of "propoals" and "hypothetical establishment" (i.e. no actual sourced information giving an overview of this (non)-"state"). All this is presented in a very inaccurate way through this infobox. Reverts to the long-standing Good Article rated version is constantly reverted in-turn. After TALK-page discussion and the comment "yes i 100% agree with you" following me explaining this reasoning as the reason for reverting away the infobox the page is still reverted to include it again --Havsjö (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * oh really who is one edit warring here, eh? (any admin who look into this case will find out who is the one adding (me user:gooduserdude) and reverting (user:Havsjö) in the first place)

Diffs of the user:Havsjö's blatant content blanking edit warring: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981332933
 * 2) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981491401
 * 3) 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981597867
 * 4) 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981612704
 * 5) 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981614306
 * 6) 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981635876

i never said i 100% agree with user:Havsjö on your edit warring content blanking, no what i 100% agree with user:Havsjö comment "Why discuss this total non-addition?" he is not willing to discuss it without reverting to massive edit warring, i would be very happy to keep the current whatever version and discuss it but, unfortunaltly for user:Havsjö it is "Why discuss this total non-addition?" yes why bother discuss something with an edit warrior that does not even want to discuss it, that is what i agreed 100% on, also he is since he is the one who made the first revert, makes it his edit war not mine Gooduserdude (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * '''regarding the edit warring on my behalf, i apologize and i will refrain from edit warring in the future, i will follow wikipolicy such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD also please take into consideration that i am a relatively new user and also thank you for this valuable lesson and good day Gooduserdude (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:172.78.51.90 reported by User:KidAd (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User has repeatedly inserted material from sources, copy-and-pasted directly into the article with a full URL. After my two reverts, the IP went to my talk page here and here, claiming that their edits were covered by "fair use guidelines." I explained here that their interpretation of "fair use" did not provide justification for copy-pasting content from sources into the article. I left a template warning on their talk page and a warning of this 3RR report, but they have not replied to either warning on their talk page. As I formulated this report, the IP again replied to me on my talk page,, casting WP:ASPERSIONS with From what I gather from your talk page there is something entirely suspicious in what you're doing on Wiki. Note: I reverted an identical edit to the same page on September 29. While the edit was made by a different IP, they are both linked to Valparaiso, Indiana. The IP has since been reverted but another user, but I have no expectation that they will stop based on prior behavior. KidAd  talk  22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Fourth revert. KidAd   talk  22:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. KidAd and an associate have continually deleted content that is factual, sourced, quoted, and used under Fair Use Guidelines.

2. All they've done is delete the content instead of attempting to rectify what their claimed problems with the Controversies section are, and in fact an edit war.

3. That appears to prove KidAd and associate are, in fact, engaged in scrubbing the Victoria Spartz page instead of helping expand it.

4. It is unethical and IIRC against Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A reply from my talk page:

1. Hit-and-run quotes are inserting text without attribution, usually unrelated to the subject. That is NOT what the Controversies section is - which proves again that you and your associates are simply scrubbing the page.

2. (a) they are very short quotes; (b) very few quotes, only those necessary to clarify the controversies; (c) the attributions are included; (d) in case you and your associates are unaware, Fair Use includes use for research - of which the Controversies section is.

3. All your 'several different editors' is you and your associates using a bullying technique and exploitation of the rules well known on Wiki and used by certain cliques. That is exactly what is going on here.

4. You and your associates are simply scrubbing the page and pursuing an edit war to do it - against policy and completely unethical.

Addition:

KidAd has brought in two other associates to help keep scrubbing the page of the Controversies section and pursuing an edit war with a well known bullying technique and exploitation of the rules to make it appear as if I am the one doing it.

As apparently registered editors, they should be held to the standards that preclude all such actions by them. It's those actions that continue to keep Wiki under negative criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I ask Administration to come in and take a look at the Controversies section and to reformat it if there is actually a problem with the format; to stop KidAd and associates from continually scrubbing the page and pursuing their edit war; and enforce sanctions against them for their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 5RR
 * 6RR (albeit not within the 24-hour window)
 * Note that the inserted content is a copyvio as well. I'll post a revdel request to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:192.26.8.4 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 192.26.8.4 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Telsho (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: –

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – User initially accused me of edit warring, and when I had asked to explain why they continuously use the the same claim of "no consensus" despite there being no connection whatsoever to the other topics that were discussed on the talk page. Not long later, they had reverted again with an almost identical edit summary. Telsho (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, there is currently a discussion at | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this page.
 * The LTA page can be found here.
 * The relevant SPI can be found here. Transcendental36 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very knowledgeable, definitely not suspicious 1.5 week old account. How is this related again, bringing up an archived SPI and a LTA of another user? Telsho (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To put it politely: why the fudge am I still being harassed by this account? This was a clear block more than a month ago. Did anyone notice they tried to delete u|Transcendental36’s comment here? Yeah... Thats not the first or even the second time they’ve done that on this noticeboard. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For heaven’s sake just look at ... Thats nine (plus or minus one, its a bit hard to tell) reverts since late august edit warring the same questionable content back into the lead of South Korea, that they have the gall to accuse me of edit warring is unbelievable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's harassing who, HEB? or formerly known as Horse Eye Jack? I'm not the one stalking and reverting other users contributions and edits. Anyway, I'll just keep it short. Also, your second statement is a clear fallacy if one actually reads the diffs, they were not being reverted just by me. If I used that same analyzer on multiple articles that you were involved in, I'm sure I can find many incidents where you reverted more than 3–4 times, especially on your old account which you conveniently forgot the password for. Telsho (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The only reason I'm not closing this thread is I'm debating if a boomerang block is in order for the slow-motion edit war by . —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * at least take away their Twinkle privileges, they’ve used it to do all of this which is clearly abusing Twinkle. WP:TWINKLEABUSE suggests that the penalties for so egregiously abusing Twinkle should be severe but I dont know it thats really enforced in practice. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello User:C.Fred. I would recommend a one-week block of User:Telsho for long term edit warring based on these links:
 * Previous 48-hour block for edit warring issued at this noticeboard on 26 September.


 * My warning to Telsho for edit warring on this same article, Singapore–U.S. relations, issued on 2 October.


 * One of two attempts by Telsho to delete others' comments from this noticeboard.
 * –EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

User:96.44.5.219 reported by User:Citing (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * User doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, immediately edit warring on a few pages in an attempt to insert original synthesis in support of pseudoscientific race science. Citing (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, does anyone dispute my summary of the papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've tried to explain this to you on multiple pages, but you have ignored it or blanked it. Regardless, you shouldn't edit war even if you think you are right. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This IP has also edit warred at A Troublesome Inheritance:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I tried to explain the specific issue with their edits, but they blanked it and replaced it with comment that ignored the issue. Since then IP is also edit warring to restore similar complaints to my talk page.  Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP has been edit warring across multiple Wikipedia namespaces (article, WP, and talk) for days. I've blocked for 48 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert again, despite 1RR. 1 this editor doesn't know how to use references and breaks code, which allows the 1RR exception 2. this editor made a wholesale revert of my edits, including the completely unjustified revert of typo fixing and copyedits, and I have trouted the editor on their talkpage.."
 * 2)  "Incorrect references code. Also, please use normal references, not notes."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Here.

Comments:

I noticed this when it scrolled across my watchlist with the edit summary, above, literally announcing they were intentionally violating the WP:1RR on this page; while they say they were doing it because of broken code, the page was not significantly impacted, and it's hard to see that justifying such a sweeping revert, especially given that they were plainly in a content dispute over the bulk of the material they reverted. User was warned by someone else here (further discussion makes it clear they saw it), though given that they announced their intention in their edit summary it's probably not necessary. Further discussion about the dispute at hand (including further warnings) is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas&oldid=981702926#Militant? here]. Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * user:Nishidani has broken 1RR too why didn't you reported him? He removed word militant as description of organization two times?
 * [] first edit removing militant
 * 1 revert by Nishidani
 * 2 revert by Nishidani
 * I can make separate report if needed --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are far too experienced an editor, Shrike, to muck up a spurious argument here without it looking rather embarrassingly disingenuous. Debresser egregiously (he admits it) broke the IR rule, and your inclusion of me in the report is a distraction. The question was, retain or elide the use of 'militant' as the defining epithet for Hamas. Unlike Debresser I engaged with the talk page, where two long term editors expressed their dissatisfaction with 'militant' as it stands against an IP newbie with almost zero edits on Wikipedia. Since I agreed with their point that militant alone was pointy, I retained it while qualifying it with an expansion of the sentence in which it occurred. Bizarrely you claim this is my first revert. So this is obviously not a revert, it is a compromise between Shrike's position, and that of User:Selfstudier,and User:ImTheIP.
 * Therefore, the question is what was Debresser doing, walking in to revert me without discussion on the talk page, and then, when I restored my edit (Ist and only revert) reverting me again with an open acknowledgement that he was breaking a rule we apply rigorously in the I/P area? On my page, worse still, he said my edit 'provoked him', I mplying that his expunging of my careful edit, which started this, was not 'provocative'. That indeed displays a battlefield mentality, particularly in my regard, since he does this repeatedly. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nishidani's contribution, which admittedly messed up codewise but was not really hard to fix, was useful and I have partially restored the most useful part of it. Debresser's actions seem a little bit cavalier, I can't help but notice that he frequently attends Nishidani's edits in combat mode.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a revert of long standing version but I let the admins to decide Shrike (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think your edit is a good one --Shrike (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Shrike, your evidence for a 'revert' consists in adding or removing one word, 'militant'. In what you call my first revert, that word is kept there, respecting the long-standing version. In this, I collaborated with your revert, refined the book reference you introduced from Kear by giving precise pages, and I compromised by clarifying the other editor's preference for 'nationalist' by finding in Kear, whom you introduced, a clarification of Hamas's perception of itself as a national liberation movement. This is how one is supposed to edit, collaboratively. Debresser just barged in, reverted, and reverted. He did so in an explicitly in-your-face defiance of a fundamental rule, breaking which usually ends up with an AE sanction. I would have reported Debresser there, my third report in 14 years, but I'm not allowed to make reports or comment at AE - I'll never know why.  That is intolerable since, as I showed on the talk page, he hadn't even read my edit before excising it. So, can we focus on this maverick insouciance to rule-observant and to collaborative editing by Debresser?Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Nishdani added code that was formatted wrongly and resulted in garbled text. When I reverted him, he knowingly repeated his edit. The knowingly part follows from his edit summary. Unfortunately, Nishidani, although a long-time editor, often disregards the need to write well-formatted text.
 * As to the justification for my revert, despite the fact that I was aware of 1RR on this article, I was sure that an edit resulting in garbled text may be reverted. Much like vandalism. Now, without calling Nishidani's first edit vandalism, but his second revert could very well be called such. As EdJohnston pointed out on my talkpage, that is not one of the exceptions in WP:NOT3RR, and I was wrong. On a sidenote, I think that undoing an edit that is technically problematic should be an exception.
 * I may add that in his second revert, Nishidani also reverted additional edits of mine, with any reason whatsoever. Like changing Reuters back to Retuers, and restoring the word "but" at the beginning of a sentence. If you all are going to be worked up about me reverting an edit that garbled the text of this article, then I think Nishidani's second edit deserves an honorable mention as well. For both reasons mentioned above (knowingly restoring garbled text and undoing clear improvements without reason). Debresser (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And since we are here already, I think the edit summary of the second revert "I did a major revision of the page, the top contributor, with 18% of text to my credit." reeks of WP:OWN issues. Which may explain the eagerness with which he made his second and very problematic revert, and is an additional reason Nishidani should be reprimanded for his second edit. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We need not be here. You were informed by one of the most experienced administrators we have, writing on your page without prompting from anyone, that your revert was inappropriate. You have had half a day to follow his advice and revert. You are obliged to do so, immediately, and not argue the point (I won't reply to the numerous errancies in the above representation of what I did but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=next&oldid=981679107 I restored your correction of Reuters). Now, be responsible, don't argue, just revert. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Debresser appears to be stalling. He was advised to revert by EdJohnston, after this report was made. He undertook to examine it, admitted he was wrong, was asked therefore to revert again, and, apparently, won't. Anyone familiar with his record will, I think, recall that this is a standard response (stonewalling) when called to order for an infraction. He won't budge. I very rarely call for sanctions, don't haunt complaint pages, but find my work here often disrupted by his stalking, even with nonsensical challenges (the utter 'garbling' of clear text here for example, cp.here). The page he disrupted with his double revert requires serious review, standardization, and close control of over 500 sources, and other editors should be given an assurance they can work calmly without this nagging at their heels, this jagging a spoke into the wheel to force wiki revision of difficult pages into a standstill. Inadvertent errors are understandable, conscious rule-breaking less so, but stubborn refusal to play by the rules, reverting as asked, is  gaming, and should be sanctioned. Otherwise the editor in  question is being accorded special privileges. Only a sanction, often avoided in the past with his infractions, will send a clear message that he should (a) read the rules closely, applying them after over a decade and a half of familiarity with them and (b) not to rush at reverting edits without either reading them, reading up on the rationale, or using the talk page. I don't stalk  him, yet he considers he has a right to provoke me because my editing, wholly unrelated to what he does, feels like a personal provocation to him. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a real life. I replied to EdJohnston on my talkpage (although I really don't see what he wants from me at this stage).
 * Stalking? Not so.
 * You are an editor with, I think, over 10 years of editing experience, and still garble pages, and then you want me sanctioned for undoing your deliberate garbling of text?! That is rich!
 * I have acknowledged my mistake, so this report can be closed. However, I think Nishidani clearly has several issues, in general and on this article specifically, and I think he should be sternly warned to be more careful in his edits, and avoid the Hamas article, with which he seems to have a serious WP:OWN issue.
 * For good measure we should admonish the reporting editor, User:Aquillion, as well, since I really think that in view of the fact that Nishidani re-introduced garbled text in his second, deliberate revert, this report was really unnecessary, and reeks of being pointy. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , he wants you to revert to a worse version just so you can satisfy the "revert" even though it will ruin the article. He's done the same to me in the past.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing adjectives around ('worse') or implying I intend smugly, by getting D to respect policy and his obligations as an editor, to 'ruin' the page I'm endeavouring to fix, is vacuous. I won't burden this page with the evidence for your assertions, but have posted the differences on the Hamas talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I wasn't directly involved in the dispute, the crux of it is clearly the word 'militant' and how to frame or use it; since his preferred version of the handling for that word remains in place from his revert, and there's no indication that the dispute has been resolved on talk, it is obviously not settled yet.
 * Regarding the formatting issue, it was not, of course, necessary to revert that aspect in order to fix the formatting. If Debresser had only fixed the formatting, it would not even have been a revert, and clearly no one would have objected; the person he was in a dispute with would have been duly embarrassed by their unintentional error and that would be the end of it. If he had fixed the formatting and re-instated his less controversial fixes and improvements to the text, it would have been a revert, but, again, I certainly wouldn't have bothered to report it.  But he also used this as a justification to revert the disputed wording of the lead - going from seeking legitimation through the provision of social services and militant engagement in armed challenges to the Israeli occupation to simply militant, which was precisely part of his first revert - and that is plainly a WP:1RR violation, of contested article text, in the middle of a dispute over it, which is plainly more serious than a simple error.  It was totally unnecessary to do so in order to fix an obvious unclosed tag - I just glanced at the source of the version he reverted myself, and it took ten seconds to identify where to put the curly braces to fix the issue.  Even if he found himself unable to identify the problem, and was determined to fix it immediately, it would have been simple enough for him to take the last working version and copy-paste the changes into it so his edit would not be a revert; but he plainly wanted to revert the disputed text as well. And, more generally, the fact that he still seems to think he did nothing wrong or that people are trying to catch him on a mere technicality is a problem. It's the exact opposite - "don't repeatedly revert disputed text on a page with a WP:1RR restriction" is a clear, ironclad, red-line rule. "They missed closing a tag, so I'm going to blanket-revert the entire page" is reaching for a technicality. When you see an editor in a dispute you're with screw up the formatting, your response ought to be "that sucks, I'll spend the ten seconds necessary to fix it, then hash out the rest on talk" rather than "aha, a chance to blanket-revert their entire edit!" I don't care what happens this time, but he needs to avoid doing that again, and understand that he has to be more careful around the boundaries of WP:1RRs, even in situations like this. It is understandably frustrating to be put in a position where the right thing to do would be to fix an error in a version you disagree with, but WP:1RR is still meant to be a red-line rule for a reason. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The behavioural problem here: reverting me successively, in defiance of the rules, and, when brought to ANI or AE being sanctioned, and then engaging in extensive haggling to get the sanction reduced, and managed to succeed, only to return to the harassment almost immediately has gone on for over a decade. Just a few incidents from this year-
 * Notwithstanding his antipathy for me, In the past I have at times collegially asked his advice on things he actually knows about. And the interaction was positive, briefly (October 14). a mere ten days later he was for the nth time violating 1R, because I was involved.
 * (1) In April he bitches about me on his talk page. See here (obsession)
 * (2) In mid-May he was blocked 1 week for edit warring precisely regarding 3R, the easiest rule to understand
 * (3) Soon after his light sentence for what is an ingrained, repeated refusal to learn the rules, he complained on my talk page again, with a threat
 * (4) So I reminded him of what his problem is, repeated violation of the same basic rules, repeated undertakings to learn and improve, followed by the same behavior. He refuses to mend his ways. His response?
 * (5) He carries out his threat to report me for ostensibly violating the 3R rule. What was the verdict? He still doesn't after a dozen reminders over a decade, understand 3RR, not to speak of 1R.
 * (6) He laid off a little, but at Hamas came back and repeated the same behavior, was again wrong, admitted as such after extensive reminders, then spends three days justifying himself, attacking me for writing 'garbled'(reproduce text in a way that distorts the message) (no proof). What has he learnt? I should be 'sternly warned', Aquilion who spotted his violation of the rule 'admonished', and he should be allowed to go back to his life, which, on Wikipedia consists of tweaking 24/7, or reverting content editors like myself, who have to spend hours of research before they engage in most edits. I keep wondering, why has Debresser, despite a mountainslide of evidence over a decade showing he will  not allow revert rules to get in the way of his obsessive sleuthing of my edits, allowed to get away, uniquely with this contempt of court.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Though I hoped for a better outcome, it seems that protection is the answer. At least one editor here broke 1RR and possibly two. All the parties here have negotiation skills, so I hope they will use them on the talk page. The Edit protect template can be used to ask for changes to a protected page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * With all due respect (and you have a right to bucket loads), that is Solomonic.
 * To attribute 'negotiating skills' to the other party is curious, unless you mean he has remarkable success on a dozen occasions of getting a sanction for violating 3RR or 1R overturned or reduced. Over the last several years I have seen him compromise only once after he has been reverted. He takes his right to revert as unilateral,  and any revert of his often thoughtless reverts evidence his his authority is impugned.
 * To lockdown the article is pointless, since, of the disputing parties, I appear to be the only one with a record of actually undertaking major revisions and thoroughly working through articles. The editing history of Debresser (quantitatively impressive), Shrike, and SJ is of tweaking work already done, and in this area, almost always consists of reverts. So effectively you are locking me out, not applying a party-neutral measure.
 * Twice the party reported ignored your advice, told you to 'cool down', even stated that if you confirmed what you advised, I.e. he should considering revert, he would revert. You stayed silent. If that had occurred on AE, it would not have been tolerated.
 * You confirm Debresser for the nth time in over 10 years, broke a strict rule. The last time I did that, and preferred the punishment to reverting back what was a mendacious text manipulated by a congenital edit-warrior of the old vintage in 2015/16 Doug Weller rightly gave me I think 2 months suspension. What has changed since? Why is Debresser given an immunity not conceded to others?
 * You suggest it might be possible that I too broke 1R. That is as assertion, disproven, made by Shrike. So, while I naturally accept the ruling, I will observe that it will not solve the problem, which is, in my view twofold: getting Debresser to cease and desist from following me in order to jump at petty slips to revert me; lowering his obsession with myself and my 'disruptive' presence on Wikipedia, endlessly repeated for years. I don't follow Debresser. He does follow my editing (how did he get to the Incitement article to revert my 'a sentence in gaol' into a ridiculous 'a sentence in goal'?) and therefore, objectively your austere refusal to make a call one way or another has strengthened his hand. Expect more of the same, therefore, from precisely the same editor whose misbehavior and contempt for basic rules got him here in the first place, and for the nth time. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I acknowledged that I was wrong and expressed willingness to undo my edit. What more do you need? And let's not forget, that your edit garbled text, and IMHO that comes really close to being a good reason to revert, 1RR or not.
 * On a sidenote, I had no issue with the whole "militant" thingy. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk page remonstration didn't work; you didn't acknowledge you were wrong on your talk page, it was all iffy; trying to get you to admit you were wrong took 3 days over several pages, like drawing blood out of a stone(waller) while paralyzing the article's improvement. You were reported and began the usual routine of justifying what you did, perhaps you erred, and finally admitted you made a mistake, while miotigating the culpa bility with repeated assertions about my 'garbling' code and refusing to revert. Having succeeded in avoiding what is almost a mandatory penalty given your long record of jamming up serious editors with ill-motivated reverts that at least a dozen times have been shown to arise from an inability to grasp revert policy from 2011 until today, you still say the important thing is 'I garbled text'. There is software out there that, whenever I have done a comprehensive series of edits which is how I work here, and NSH001, as you must have noticed since he applies it to virtually all my extensive  psge creations or recensions. That software automatically spots errors, code flaws, and corrects them or leaves a red mark signaling where I have to correct, say, a dissonance between the reference pagination and the source used, etc. There is absolutely no need, as you must know by now, for using a minor, nugatory code slip to eviscerate the content of what I write, since that work is done collaboratively by the two of us, if in the meantime, collaborative editors don't spot and make the necessary slight adjustments. As Aquillion noted, and Selfstudier showed in his edit, you could have easily fixed in a second the slip. But that is not your motivation: you enjoy reverting me, it's a grudge match, which doesn't provoke me to mirror your execrable behavior. Now, what have we, with Ed's solution. A couple of smirks on the talk page, and an article review stymied for a hopelessly outdated and sloppily edited text that is rated of high importance. One example:
 * "Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey are some countries that view Hamas in a positive light."


 * In a serious encyclopedia that can be fixed by simply writing

"Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey are some countries that view Hamas in a positive light"


 * So congratulations. It's not a content dispute, since you know nothing about the content except what you read on that page, show no familiarity with the history of Hamas, which requires acquaintance with at least 5 academic overviews to achieve equilibrium, and balance the highly charged POVs of much of the journalism used to document it. I'm fucked if I am going to fix things, wasting days (just this absurd little game of yours jammed activity on the article for three days, imagine the nightmare of my going ahead with the 50-100 further edits if I have your revert gun pointed at my head. I'm dumbfounded that after documenting that you have persisted for a decade in the same tendentious revert pattern, have been hauled  before the board and persistently been told you don't understand revert policy, and abuse it, that you still can get away with it. You are unique on Wikipedia. The rules, so stringently applied to people like myself, are waived in your case. Well done. Another scalp and another article improvement blocked.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Get off your high horse. It sounds as though you really believe you are G-ds gift to Wikipedia. Talking about WP:OWN issues... And please stop the battlefield attitude while you're at it, will you. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:87.206.239.104 reported by User:BJackJS (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Deliting libelous words of racist line of Lying Wikipedia/* Polygenist evolution */"
 * 2)  "fighting the Wikipedia White Racist Lies"
 * 3)  "deliting derogatories of other wikipedists"
 * 4)  "Deliting derogatory statemnt/* Polygenist evolution */"
 * 5)  "deliting derogatories of other wikipedists"
 * 1)  "Deliting derogatory statemnt/* Polygenist evolution */"
 * 2)  "deliting derogatories of other wikipedists"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: (Might be better at ARV board but let me know) Vandalism and edit warring after numerous warnings BJackJS  talk 19:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:RMSdw reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 982225783 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 982220906 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 982220858 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 982220708 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 982220655 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 982220451 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 982219894 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 982208986 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 982174652 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 982150546 by Snooganssnoogans (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 982101501 by RussBot (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 981974800 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 981974769 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 981974669 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 981963081 by Snooganssnoogans (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 981908792 by Dosafrog (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 981908792 by Dosafrog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ryan Saavedra."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ryan Saavedra."
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ryan Saavedra."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also possible WP:COI. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I see there actually a vandalism when regarding the article rather than edit warring. So i report the user to AIV as well. 36.68.186.156 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User has been partially-blocked indef from the Ryan Saavedra article by User:Deepfriedokra. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Keywan faramarzi reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Warning, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Seemingly the same account as. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: One of senior members of the group is a Keywan Faramarzi. COI is also possible. Pahlevun (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Keywan faramarzi is warned for edit warring and the page is semiprotected two months. The article is constantly being edited by IPs and new users to make the party sound more moderate and to remove the 'terrorist' designation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Havsjö reported by User:Gooduserdude (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981752630

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981332933
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981491401
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981597867
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981612704
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981614306
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=981635876

Comments: i never said i 100% agree with on User:Havsjö edit warring content blanking, no what i 100% agree with user:Havsjö comment "Why discuss this total non-addition?" he is not willing to discuss it without reverting to massive edit warring, i would be very happy to keep the current whatever version and discuss it but, unfortunaltly for user:Havsjö it is "Why discuss this total non-addition?" yes why bother discuss something with an edit warrior that does not even want to discuss the subject, that is what i agreed 100% on with him Gooduserdude (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This was a dispute on whether an area of Europe that was not a country ought to have a country-style infobox. At least, that is how the opponents framed it. I suggest getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: Withdrawn)
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: QuestFour also has a massive history of 3RR warnings on their talk page, and the third revert was done despite me giving him another warning and advice on their talk page to re-read the edit warring policies, as well as an attempt to reach a compromise on the article talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I attempted to reach out to them in an attempt to let them give their side of the story, but they are still editing in any page except this one. Should sanctions or a warning be placed on QuestFour until they give their side of the story here? Unnamed anon (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary for to give their side of the story? Part of why I am reporting them is their massive history of edit war warnings. I am asking this because this report is close to being archived, and still has no administrator input. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What story? you've been reverted by multiple users for making nonconsensual changes to the article, yet you undid all of them (12345) and even reported two of the users for edit warring, the very thing you were conducting. Furthermore, you keep mentioning my past mistakes, but ignoring the fact that you've been involved in far too many disputes and overall disruptiveness in your less-then-two-month old editing history, a point that has been stated by others (12). QuestFour (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have also been making nonconsensual changes. A 2-1 vote is barely a consensus, and there has only been objection to listing it in the table and treating it like an episode, not objection to briefly mentioning it, which, if you haven't noticed, I'm trying to reach a compromise, which you have been completely ignoring. You say I've been reverted by multiple users, but only one other user has reverted my edits to that page, and that was because I made the mistake of calling the special the season 24 premiere in the same edit, not because of the movie. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am getting extremely worried about what should be done in his situation. Neither me nor QuestFour have edit warred in the past few days, but we did on the day I reported it, and I would like to know whether administrative action is needed against either me or QuestFour, especially now that this is next in line to being archived now. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: while I am still worried about QuestFour's edit warring history (and with it being the primary reason I reported, as the content dispute could've ended with me losing and I'd be fine), their admission of it being "past mistakes" as well as me never really caring that much about the content dispute, makes me think this won't be an issue. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: This complaint has been withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Swpb reported by User:Tsistunagiska (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: {{{userlinks|Swpb}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (User talk page)
 * 2)  (Article talk page)

Comments:

has made several reverts and edits to article Nacoochee Mound in which they make claims about a personal POV not established by the sources provided. To the contrary, each accessible source referenced states that the Cherokee were present, if only minimally. There was a Cherokee town called Nacoochee and Chota in the area as noted in multiple sources. The fact that there has been no excavation of the site around the mound is not equal to the asserttion made that the Cherokee were not present as referenced in the sources, Langford(1) and Heye(2) see pg.5 second paragraph. 1 2 Most likely the town was occupied after the Battle of Taliwa as most Creek towns were when they were pushed south. This is backed by historical data as presented in the references. The user has reverted every attempt to add anything related to the Cherokee and even the Creek people as it relates to the references in the article. Instead they added additional personal POV statements not supported by the references provided. I noted several issues with the article on the Talk Page that have not been addressed by the editor. None of the edits I have made to article compromise the integrity or can not be backed up by historical data and the sources provided. I notified the user on their talk page but they refused to change course on their disruptive behavior. I am asking that an admin step in to mediate this issue as this is recurring. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Since Tsistunagiska has (for the first time here) identified specific support for the claim of Cherokee presence (a specific page within Heye's 103 pages), I'm happy to add it (and have, and also would have without an ANI...), even if other sources don't concur. I don't know if that justifies the Cherokee navbox, but now I don't really care about that. Their previous position, though, essentially "we must include Cherokee because there's no proof they weren't there", was an incorrect flip of the burden of proof. As to accusations of warring or POV pushing, for expecting a citation... well, it really doesn't seem like I need to defend myself there. I'm sorry to the ANI reviewers for this waste of your time. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

User:202.9.46.101 reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Too many to list them all, its well into the double digits with at least four editors reverting them.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I'M REMOVING ALL PAID US GOVERNMENT MALICIOUS ANTI-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA FROM THESE ARTICLES. READ ALL MY POSTS IN THE TALK PAGE. SOME OF THESE ARE PAID US GOVERNMENT AGENTS THAT WILL COME AFTER YOU. YOU HAVE TO BE VERY AWARE. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Page should probably also be semi-protected, the IP seems invested and is therefore likely to return. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing and personal attacks, and edit warring too I guess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Gojo Bonito reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring sourced material removed by a troll"
 * 2)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 3)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 4)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 5)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 6)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 7)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 8)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 9)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 10)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 11)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 12)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 13)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 14)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 15)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 16)  "Restoring sourced material"
 * 17)  "Restoring sourced material"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have withdrawn an earlier report when they appeared to have stopped edit warring, but unfortunately, they don't seem to understand and are now back edit warring again. M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  05:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User: reported by User: (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] He deleted our text as follow: Komala has changed over time. Today, Komala stands for a democratic, pluralist, secular, and federal Iran that is based on the rule of law which guarantees and safeguards the fundamental liberties and human rights of all ethnic groups in Iran. It advocates for a broad-based democratic coalition in Iran and for solidarity amongst ethnic and religious minorities that historically have been marginalized and persecuted by Iran’s current Islamist regime. Having adopted the European social democracy model as a fair and appropriate solution for the diverse Iran, Komala has been promoting that political model both in Iran and within its Kurdish region inside Iran. Komala is a social democrat party from Kurdistan of Iran. Komala party has adopted the social democracy as it’s core ideology since 2000, komala is now a member of Social Democrat family here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komala_Party_of_Iranian_Kurdistan&action=edit&undoafter=982479947&undo=982485832

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: --Keywan faramarzi (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AmblinX reported by User:IceWelder (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "corr"
 * 2)  "update"
 * 3)  "clarified misleading statement"
 * 4)  "update"
 * 5)  "break even from the "box office" section additional sources"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 982166746 by Cognissonance (talk)"
 * 7)  "Breakeven"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has added a poorly sourced and worded statement to the given article and has been reverted on five occasions by four separate users:, (twice), myself, and . The user has reverted all reverting edits, either directly or manually, and gave level-3 warnings to all involved users, as well as a level-4 warning to Cognissonance after their second revert, all of them with WP:SHOUT-y headers. The user is clearly engaging in edit-warring/disruptive editing and is aware of the regulations (given their usage of warnings). The user is trying to direct blame to four independent users who have each reverted the user's single addition, and has not once attempted to solve the issue through discussion (having never engaged with the article's talk page). WP:3RR is also met, with the first three or the last three reverts happening within a less-than-24-hour time frame. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit warring has continued into the fourth consecutive day (revisions added above). IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2409:4061:16:aeb3:5867:e5a5:e65c:9bbd reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is an ongoing issue talk at some length on the talk page (but not recently). Note they are now at 5RR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Restoring the indefinite semiprotection on 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes that this article had up until 17 July. Will leave a note for User:El C who lifted the protection then. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Msasag reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

I guess Msasag is trying to implement a discussion he sees as consensus, and also is disinterested to discuss with editors he doesn't deem to "experts". Unfortunately the content in dispute requires a lot of discussion, as already found on the article talk and on WP:LING. Rapid reverts are not the way. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the discussion was still going on, the page was edited: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/982448070 which I reverted. Is there no point in discussions? Plus we had a discussion and reached a conclusion on this topic earlier also. User:Msasag(talk • contribs) 11:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that Msasag had also violated 3RR on Rangpuri Language last month, the report was archived without any action. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That one wasn't a violation of 3RR. User:Msasag(talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless there is patent disruption and/or vandalism invloved, edit warring is not acceptable in any way, especially breaking 3RR on an article under DS. "I was in a discussion" is not good enough reason to engage in edit wars. Besides, you and another editor agreeing to something with the only other participant strongly disagreeing is not called consensus. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Msasag reverted four times at Bengali–Assamese script beginning with this removal of the Gaudi script at 17:46 on 7 October. (Removal of Gaudi undoes a change made by User:Chaipau at 13:06 on 27 September). In my opinion Msasag can avoid a block for edit warring if they will promise to make no more reverts on Bengali–Assamese script without a prior consensus in favor of their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I promise to wait for prior consensus on the article talk page before making any more reverts at Bengali–Assamese script. Msasag(talk • contribs) 2:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Msasag will wait for consensus on the talk page prior to any further revert at Bengali–Assamese script. This was in lieu of a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:94.31.28.100 reported by User:1subAtomic (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 982476155 by QueerEcofeminist (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 982476090 by 1subAtomic (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 982475944 by 1subAtomic (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 982475793 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Please do not contribute text in Vietnamese to English Wikipedia."
 * 2)   "Caution: Vandalism (RW 15)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hayley Sings."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also, it looks like Special:Contributions/81.145.191.237 is adding his vandalism back into the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayley_Sings&diff=982476416&oldid=982476357 ❯❯ 1sub Atomic   (💬Talk)  11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Vandalism by three different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:NikolajPeter1810 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Indef)
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:

NikolajPeter1810 has been editing under numerous IP addresses, as seen here and here, and disrupting the Take That article for months, which led to its semi-protection. KyleJoan talk 09:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the only user i have. i have never been a part of wikipedia until now--NikolajPeter1810 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)--NikolajPeter1810 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the filing of the report, NikolajPeter1810 has continued to disrupt the article, as seen here, by defying the established talk page consensus. KyleJoan talk 09:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NikolajPeter1810 continues edit warring on the affected article, despite having been made aware that they are editing against the consensus established by other users. Jonie148 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Fuzheado as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Cassandra872 reported by User:Bradford (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That is the title in English. This is the English Wikipedia. And that is how the third season goes. It is referenced fully."
 * 2)  "Cassandra872 moved page Somos tú y yo to It's You And Me"
 * 3)  "English language title. Adding references, an plot summary, from ES Wikipedia."
 * 4)  "Cassandra872 moved page Somos tú y yo to It's You and Me"
 * 1)  "English language title. Adding references, an plot summary, from ES Wikipedia."
 * 2)  "Cassandra872 moved page Somos tú y yo to It's You and Me"
 * 1)  "Cassandra872 moved page Somos tú y yo to It's You and Me"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Somos tú y yo."
 * 2)   "/* October 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user persists in changing the title of the article saying that this is Wikipedia in English and that only for that reason the title should be in English. But that is not the case, the series has not been promoted in the United States with these titles. And it tries to do the same with NPS: No puede ser, I have asked you to provide a source for these titles in English, but it does not contribute anything, it only says that this is Wikipedia in English. Bradford  Talk  21:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this user is getting close to an indefinite block. They are now edit warring and move warring at more than one article. See also their talk page and their edit filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , fully support an indefinite block.  Heart  (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I had thought the title was supposed to be in English on English Wikipedia, and when I translated the articles to get a summary of the synopsis to rewrite, it did say It's You And Me: A New Day was the proper title when translated.  I see now you meant an English-language article reference title, so you were right, and I was wrong about what the title should be, so I am sorry about that, and do accept that Somos tú y yo is the proper title for EWikipedia. Cassandra872 (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Cassandra871 is warned for edit warring. Due to their apology above, no admin action is needed at this time. When moving articles, *any* revert should be enough reason to stop and wait for consensus. See WP:RM for the process to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rritoch reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 982647964 by Roxy the dog (talk) Your history of edits on this article show bias. This needs review from the professionals so I'll risk my account being suspended!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 982647331 by Roxy the dog (talk) Your bias was clear when you claimed I'm from Ukraine!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 982646085 by Roxy the dog (talk) > Google confirmed the site wasn't removed for fake news, but was removed due to webmaster violations!"
 * 4)  "Removed biased and controversial politically motivated language."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Straightforward 4 revert edit warring. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rritoch I acknowledge and admit to this because I don't know how to trigger a review otherwise. User:Roxy the dog has made numerous politically motiviated biased changes on this article when in fact Google has already confirmed that the rumors of the site being penalized for fake news was wrong, in fact it was for violations of webmaster guidelines and the site has since been restored, invalidating nearly every fake news claim on this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rritoch (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Parblocked for 2 weeks. We don't seem to have an AN3 template for partial blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kind of weird to block them, undo their edit siding with the filer, and then start editing the article regularly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to restore the article to the unsourced, incorrect version, if you think that improves Wikipedia somehow? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you, that is exactly what I meant with that comment. I appreciate it! Good job, big win. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you're meaning to accomplish here, but if you have a problem with my subsequent edits to the page, I'm sure you know where the rollback button is. If you're meaning to file a complaint, WP:ANI ought to be your next stop. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry for confusing you then, it was a comment on the perception of involved. I assume it would not need to go to ANI if you agree to be more careful in the future. Thanks! Also side note, the block was of course appropriate as well as the indef apparently. PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Careful of what, exactly? That you'll mistake blocking an editor and then cleaning up their nonsense on a page I have not previously edited as some violation of WP:INVOLVED? Perhaps you should read it, so that we do not have any unnecessary drama at ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down, it's okay. PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rritoch escallated to legal threats, so the block was escallated to full-site indef (see also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rqwfas1 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Warned for MOS violations)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Wenzhou."
 * 2)   "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Wenzhou."
 * 3)   "/* Section headings and capitalisation */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I feel terrible bringing this here, but this new editor seems not to know that they have a talk page, and they are continually reverting extremely time-consuming proofreading fixes to their preferred oververbose, overly capitalized versions outside the parameters of MOS:SECTIONHEAD. I'm only asking for a 48-hour heads-up block (given the weekend; otherwise I'd only ask for 24) to alert the editor that they have talk-page messages. Thanks.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this has reached the level of an action for edit warring yet; however, a warning for MOS violations is definitely in order. I have left one to make clear that they could be blocked if they continue to make such edits without discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Wname1 reported by User:Hebsen (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Hebsen on, John Maynard Friedman on , John Maynard Friedman on

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: John Maynard Friedman on (Thread)

Comments:

There are three overlapping 3RR-violations (2–4, 3–5, 4–6), the last of which is newer than the attempt of resolving it on the talk page. is an 3RR-violation (3-6), and the user continued reverting even after a discussion was started on the talk page (three reverts after the start of the discussion). In total, four different editors have reverted this user's edit. The user has previously edit-warred on the page (,, , 3RR-violation, not reported). In addition to the edit-warring, the user (who created the article) has completely ignored the talk page, where numerous issues with this article has been raised (primarily by me), instead opting to from the article. ― Hebsen (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out I misunderstood 3RR, is does not forbid three reverts within 24 hours, but sets three reverts as the max, forbidding the fourth. I have adjusted my comment accordingly. ― Hebsen (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Today at 5 p.m. I had a phone call with a German person from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Telefonberatung, the telephone number I doesn't have to written it in on the Wikipedia page, wrote User:Bishonen. The German person from Wikipedia said, that I have to take part on the talk page, nothing more. I or we received "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. I didn't know what to say about on talk page myself, because this small text from facebook (On a Facebook page called "Danexit" there are thousands of Danes (including older Danes) who want to leave the European Union. This "group was created on July 14, 2019" on Facebook.) webpage is good, visible and had no errors, ok the only bad thing was the sentence "also older Danes", which I deleted, I have also to find a reference, but I had no time on my days to do it. On German wikipedia page "Danexit" are the sentenence accepted and improved by another Wikipedia Users. Also I am often in discussion with another Users about this page, like User:John Maynard Friedman, and it will be often improved these page. When I started "Danish withdrawal from the European Union" in January 2020, User:Hebsen always wanted that it be puted in the Denmark and the European Union page, it is on the beginning Talk:Danish withdrawal from the European Union page to see and currently is User:Hebsen on this way that the page Danish withdrawal from the European Union has to go to Denmark and the European Union page. User:Hebsen canceled and changed many points on Danish withdrawal from the European Union, the page is smaller and now I think not anymore Start-Class. The same situation like now, I had during these time on these page in German language https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroonkologie, the Benutzer:Drahreg01 canceled everything on these page, keep only these sentence Es gibt in Deutschland keinen Facharzt für Neuroonkologie. on these Wikipedia page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroonkologie , now it is a little ok, what I made. --Wname1(talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion User:Wname1 is risking a block. He has been warring to include a link to a Facebook page where a user poll is being taken as to how many Danes favor Danish exit from the EU. Facebook is not a reliable source for this kind of information per WP:RSP. Wname1 has also removed maintenance templates from the article. It does not appear that anyone supports the edits of Wname1, which is why he needs to conduct a revert war to keep them in. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wname1 has now published a telephone number that he says was used to call him to tell him to engage on the talk page. This seems wildly unlikely but, as he is active on de.wikipedia too, is not impossible. This is an open invitation to harassment and needs to be redacted urgently, both here and everywhere else he has done it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Revision deleted in three places. Cut it out, Wname1! I don't know if it's in more places. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC).
 * , the telephone number is still available in the history of this page (eg. ). I do not see the need for redacation, thought., you got it opposite, the number was one that Wname1 made a call to, not was called by . It is a service that DEWP provides, they have a page listing the number. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, Hebsen, I see the phone number on the "Telefonberatung" page — it's a free help number at the German Wikipedia. Just as well, because I can't see the number, or any edit by Wname1 at all, at the link you gave. Perhaps you mispasted? Never mind, it obviously doesn't need to be revdel'd. Thanks for telling me. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC).

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:Theonewithreason (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User deleted sourced material 3 times in last 24 hours without starting any converastion on TP, the page was WP:STABLE with no dispute for a month and I don't see any valid reason why should this information be deleted (especially because it's sourced) and we keep other affiliate information in that is cherry picking. --User:Theonewithreason (talk) 18.52. 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion to find there.

Comments:

--User:Theonewithreason (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor in question, Theonewithreason, is making fasle assertions because is ignoring the fact that they included the contested information, which was reverted per WP:BRD and the weight is on them to start a discussion at the talk page, that STABLE is only limited to administrative context, avoids to acknowledge that multiple editors gave a valid reason why the information should be deleted nevertheless reliability of the source because it's WP:SYNTH (the sources doesn't mention or discuss the subject), in the end, the reporter is the one whose cherry-picking.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which multiple editors ? You mean the ones who didnt even bothered to start a discussion. That is first, second per WP:BRD we can see that there are other editors who reverted your deletions so that argumentation falls on your back, third the information is from source that is used in multiple wikipedia articles, deleting it from here would include deletion from others, the discussion was started on TP that the editor Miki Filigranski should have started in a first place before deleting content, the source goes in context that is mention in the article so there is no discussion of WP:SYNTH ,because we should then delete every other mention of Vlachs since by user opinion that also does not have to do with the subject. And yet violation was made 3RR in 24 hours.--User:Theonewithreason (talk) 22.10. 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – Only three reverts is not enough to break WP:3RR. But there is a dispute. If the dispute continues we may need either protection or blocks. I recommend discussion on the talk page to decide whether the material being removed by User:Miki Filigranski ought to remain in the article. If editors agree that the material is WP:SYNTH then policy requires that it be excluded. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The filer, User:Theonewithreason, is now blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mikola22 reported by User:Theonewithreason (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User deleted sourced material 3 times in last 24 hours without reaching concensus on TP, the page was WP:STABLE with no dispute for a month and now is under constant attack in last 24 hours again without any valid reason or constructive discussion on TP that is why I ask that the article gets protection. Also I would like to mention that user Mikola22 has been previously warned and blocked several times, ,. --User:Theonewithreason (talk) 18.52. 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started but without concensus.

Comments:

There is no violation of 3RR, each edit is explained in edit summary and additionally on talk page of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not and there is definitive violation of 3RR since you deleted a lot of previously stable article in matter of minutes. I am sorry but first you need to Discus it on TP, then reach Consensus to delete something in the article, also you can test the source on RsN, none of this steps were taken before deletion. --User:Theonewithreason (talk) 19.43. 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--User:Theonewithreason (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please continue to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The filer, User:Theonewithreason, is now blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Ronbb345 reported by User:IamNotU (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - they've been blanking part of the material that was originally added in this 2016 edit, and slightly modified since then, regarding Ottoman/Turkish influence on Greek cuisine.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - first removal, including sources
 * 2)  - second removal, left the sources this time
 * 3) This edit:  was made by another user as a proposed solution, but was also reverted:
 * 4) The material was restored and rearranged in another proposed solution, but was removed again:
 * 5) And again:, with the summary "There's no consesus to be reached.", after being asked to reach consensus rather than edit-war.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mediterranean cuisine, starting with - they commented there, but kept on reverting.

Comments:

They've been edit-warring also in Greek cuisine, where they've just supposedly quit Wikipedia: Talk:Greek cuisine but they've done that before (e.g. ) and then come right back to it. --IamNotU (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

User:212.178.241.246 reported by User:TU-nor (Result: Semi, Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  21:21, 6 October 2020 (No edit summary)
 * 2)  22:32, 6 October 2020 "restoring deleted content, take it to talk page"
 * 3)  22:36, 6 October 2020 "stop removing content, take it to talk page"
 * 4)  22:45, 6 October 2020 "stop removing sourced content, take it to talk page first"
 * 5)  13:49, 7 October 2020 "List was removed without discussion first, take it to talk page."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not been warned specifically about 3RR with the current IP, but has been warned here and blocked here with the IP before this one.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Alas, no discussion to find there.

Comments:

--T*U (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IP was warned at talk . The IP is most probably a sock of previous IP 212.178.243.250.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed, 212.178.243.250 has already been blocked once on September 19. 212.178.224.144 is most probably the same editor.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 212.178.241.246 is now following my edits. I've filed a report at SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Keith D. The range Special:Contributions/212.178.224.0/19 has been blocked three years by User:Ivanvector per th VJ-Yugo sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:79.184.43.150 reported by User:LindsayH (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Please note that your edits have been reverted; the instruction is to discuss the addition of more pictures/examples on the talk page; thanks"
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Capital city."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The page has a fairly clear instruction to discuss on the talk page embedded in the text just before and after the places the IP is trying to change the images; i have mentioned it to him as well as reverting it. happy days, LindsayHello 09:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should point out that i am open to trout-slapping here, because i think i have reverted too many times; i lost track, as i was doing some vandalism reversion to begin with and didn't correctly disassociate this from vandalism in my mind. I am disengaging now; happy days, LindsayHello 09:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:CablesatelliteTVguru reported by User:IPBilly (Result: Partially blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Suspected sockpuppet edit by
 * 2)  Added since submitting notice.
 * 1)  Suspected sockpuppet edit by
 * 2)  Added since submitting notice.
 * 1)  Suspected sockpuppet edit by
 * 2)  Added since submitting notice.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has attempted to reach a compromise in the midst of CablesatelliteTVguru's reverts, which can be found here:. User:CablesatelliteTVguru has been previously blocked from the page for edit warring. IPBilly (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * . Partial block applies to Extreme E article only. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ANTROBAROTICS reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ALL ABOUT TIWARI"
 * 2)  "WE ARE UPPER CASTE IF YOU HAVE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE THEN DON'T EDIT IT. FIRAT CHANGE YOU CHRISTAN ARTICLE THEN TALK ABOUT HINDUS."
 * 3)  "SEE BHRAMINS ARCTICLE FOR MORE INFO"
 * 1)  "SEE BHRAMINS ARCTICLE FOR MORE INFO"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Upper Caste */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Upper Caste */"
 * 3)   "/* Upper Caste */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Upper Caste */"

Comments:

Keeps POV pushing the phrase "They belong to upper-caste" in this surname article which already mentions that Tiwaris are Brahmins. Now this user added a huge block of unsourced content here. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The user ANTROBAROTICS is trying to remove this report. See . Looks liek a case of WP:CIR as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

, ANTROBAROTICS has been indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by bradv. Best, — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Historia, arqueología, y barcos reported by User:G-13114 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Two editors attempted to contact the User on their talk page, and had their comments blanked. G-13114 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The reported user started to revert again, but then self-reverted. I think this is a sign of progress. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User ceased the reported behaviour, so no action necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Raulbeans reported by User:Telsho (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  – "Updated", but adding the same oudated content on the lead again
 * 5)
 * 6)  – Constantly mentions the talk page despite having no interaction themselves during the discussions

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: many, but ignored and reverted by user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Dispute restarted by Raulbeans after it had previously ended and resolved which they were uninvolved

Comments:


 * —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun reported by User:Idealigic (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
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:

I reported Pahlevun for edit warring a few days ago, but nobody did anything about it. And now Pahlevun is edit warring again. He keeps adding a neutrality tag to the article despite consensus on the talk page and sources verifying what is in the article.


 * —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User: JJMC89 bot reported by User:LoveChoccyMilk (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [982813340, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 982788800
 * 2) 9828814861
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/9827880]

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

Comments: This Bot Is Edit Warring With An Anonymous User And Removing His Contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveChoccyMilk (talk • contribs)


 * . Bot is functioning properly. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Feel free to read my edits before reverting them. I know you hate the subject of the article, but unbiased, objective documentation is the goal of Wikipedia. Not pov pushing."
 * 2)  "Helping with legal fees is not supporting white supremacist causes. As much as you'd like that to be the case."
 * 3)  "Gatekeeping for your own personal pleasure in obfuscating truth is sad"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Sam Hyde."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Contra10 has already been blocked twice in the last two months for edit warring at this article. Contra10 is now a WP:SPA who only edits this topic. Contra10's arguments on the article's talk quickly devolved into thinly veiled personal attacks. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this on the reporter's page. Account has clearly become an SPA out to wear out neutral editing to push their views.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bans are temporary, truth is forever." - Okay then. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Contra10 is warned. They have reverted three times and may be blocked if they revert again at Sam Hyde. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:FlutterDash344 reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Have already reported user at WP:AIV, reporting here just in case I'm redirected here due to edit warring. Editor constantly changing date of a show without a source, even when warned multiple times on their talk page, seemingly ignoring all warnings. Article of the show in question even lists the October 15 date they continue to change. I found that even iTunes proved they are incorrect here, yet they reverted that edit as well (diff 7 above). At this point, seems to possibly be WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Won't revert again at the moment, as they probably won't care about the source once more and will just revert again. However, it's very clear that the date they are changing it to is incorrect and should be fixed (most likely with the iTunes source again) when this report is assessed. Thank you in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep... The Futon Critic lists October 15, 2010 here as well, so no matter the outcome of this report, they are definitely incorrect about the October 10 date. Magitroopa (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Final one... editor recently changed it back to October 15 here, so I readded sources in this edit. Now in the most recent edit here, the user has gone back on their own change, and removed the sources, saying in the edit summary, "Still says October 10, 2010"- when all the sources provided clearly state October 15, 2010 was the premiere date.
 * Not gonna revert again, hoping this issue can be solved soon. Thanks again. Magitroopa (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have stopped the edit war. FlutterDash344 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Keywan faramarzi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komala_Party_of_Iranian_Kurdistan&action=edit&undoafter=982479947&undo=982485832 He always deletes my texts, zelfs in talk gedeelte hij is geschreven iraanse regime ideologi!!!

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:


 * This report was submitted here a second time, still malformed. I tried to fix the header, but the report still has no diffs. The reported user, User:HistoryofIran is still not notified. I think that User:Keywan faramarzi has a conflict of interest on this topic. Hoping they will make some effort at negotiation instead of reporting regular content editors here. It seems that the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan now wants to present themselves as a mild leftist party and not not a bunch of revolutionaries. This new orientation, if correct, would need to be established through what reliable sources have written about them and not pushed into the article by reverting. It's my guess that WP:ECP on the article might be an eventual solution here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Keywan has still some difficulties to adapt to the Wikipedia working spirit and also the use of the talk page. HistoryofIran has sure not violated any 3RR rule as you can easily see at the page historyParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Whydocare reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Various IP addresses from different parts of India and newly created account User:Whydocare have been edit-warring to insert the claim that the rapists were muslims.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 08:37, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/2401:4900:4948:2522:2A13:BFCF:2B97:1D21
 * 2) 09:09, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/202.134.170.150
 * 3) 09:10, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/49.37.80.130
 * 4) 09:24, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/49.37.80.130
 * 5) 10:57, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/171.48.47.115
 * 6) 11:57-58, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:6E6:7EC8:0:1:8C50:7301
 * 7) 12:10-11, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:6E6:7EC8:0:1:8C50:7301
 * 8) 13:37, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/Whydocare
 * 9) 13:51, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/Whydocare
 * 10) 13:56, 11 October 2020 Special:Contributions/Whydocare
 * 11) 17:02, 11 October 2020] Special:Contributions/47.8.109.123

Whydocare has been warned by Materialscientist that the additions were unsourced. Some of the IP editors also received similar warnings.1,2,6

Whydocare and the IP editors are also involved in edit warring at 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder.

Comments:


 * – 5 day block to Whydocare for warring on this article as well as 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. The page at Balrampur gang rape is already semiprotected two weeks by User:Materialscientist. I've put a month of semiprotection on 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:94.194.216.94 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 982848675 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 982848457 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)  Piss off you pathetic man-child troll"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 982848124 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) Get a life you pathetic loser"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 982847508 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 5)  "I already gave a reason: Reverting Vandalism. The 'Reception' reached a consensus months ago and was repeatedly reverted/vandalized by a troll with an unconfirmed account. This wording *is* the consensus. Do *not* change again."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 982771090 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 7)  "WP:RV"
 * 8)  "WP:RV"
 * 1)  "WP:RV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user kept on removing original distributor and used name calling games on me. My feelings were really hurting from those word he/she said. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User has ceased the personal attacks since being warned about those, and user has not reverted—at least not an obvious revert—since being notified of the edit warring report. User was not warned prior to the report being filed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the named editor, has been blocked 60 hours by User:Wugapodes for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I had found out about the issue from an RFPP request, and seeing the PAs and back and forth in the history I thought a block was a better solution than protection. If editors here want to unblock or try something else, go ahead. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe reported by User:Eric (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */ a majority of editors in the discussion agree with including this text"
 * 2)  "/* top */ I don't think anyone disputes that AIER is a libertarian think tank, even themselves. It's not POV as it is supported by reliable sources and important for context"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 982938295 by Jonathan A Jones (talk): this is important context for any reader, regardless of whether they click wikilinks"
 * 4)  "/* top */ important context"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Great Barrington Declaration."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ reiterate purpose of article, adjust layout"
 * 3)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ replies, with attempt at clarification"
 * 4)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */not getting through..."
 * 5)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */what we "need to" know"
 * 6)   "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ note, request"

Comments:

User has added the text "libertarian think tank" to the article in question four times in less than 24 hours. I reverted two of those edits and another editor reverted one. I started a discussion on the article's talkpage in which the user has not participated. Eric talk 11:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that I did not participate in the discussion. My comment in the discussion: "It absolutely belongs in the first sentence as necessary context; few people will know what AIER is beforehand so it is important to introduce it. Readers will draw conclusions as they see fit. (t · c) buidhe 9:51 am, Yesterday (UTC−7) (reply)" is the fifth comment in the discussion. I did not realize that I violated 3RR, and have now self-reverted for now. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So I looked for, and could not find, any previous article version to which the first diff posted above would have been a revert (this was missing from the NB post). Therefore Buide did not break 3RR as far as I can tell.

In doing so, I ran across the following series of edits:

previous Article version

Eric's first revert

Eric's second revert

Eric's third revert

Eric's fourth revert

Total elapsed time: 24 hours, 28 minutes. While technically not a 3RR violation either, this clearly shows intent to Edit-War (and possibly GAMING of the system) on the part of User:Eric. Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since Buidhe self-reverted at 11:23 on 12 October. Editors should be aware that continued addition and removal of the 'libertarian think tank' phrase does count as plain old edit warring. Also that this article is under the WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions. If you are concerned that someone else could be violating the sanctions, you can leave on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User: Solavirum reported by User:Alex662607004 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Changed "Artsakh" to "Armenia" 09:16, 5 October 2020,13:21, 6 October 2020
 * 2) Changed number of casualties and deleted a Reuters reference 11:02, 5 October 2020,
 * 3) Removed an official statement without a description 12:06, 6 October 2020
 * 4) Modified a Reuters reference 10:43, 12 October 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 09:24, 9 October 2020
 * 2) 10:57, 9 October 2020
 * 3) 10:53, 9 October 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Solavirum Editing and Reference Misuse
 * 2) Unreferenced Numbers

Comments:


 * This user's history:
 * Two warnings from other editors.
 * Was blocked 3 months before the writing of this section, due to showing the same behavior on the same topic.
 * This user admitted twice his biased views since, in his words:
 * "because as a user from a combatant country, I might be slightly biased at least"
 * "I can't claim being fully unbiased, I'm from Azerbaijan editing an article about Azerbaijan"
 * Came up with his own crucial interpretation, "victory", regarding an ongoing conflict while the used reference did not mention that 16:38, 10 October 2020.
 * Is disrespectful to fellow Wikipedia editors 15:21, 9 October 2020.

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is Alex's third request (first, and second) in the last two days, with no success. This is getting irritating imo. has also commented about these requests. --► Sincerely:  Sola  Virum  21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

True, my yesterday request was placed twice at the wrong Wikipedia sections and even in the talk section, because I really didn't know the correct section to post it at. Now I do. Besides, making such an honest first-time mistake does not lower the importance of the reported case. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore,, this is your last warning. There is already an open discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, relevant comments can be made there. If you make another request separate for administrator intervention against Solavirum without providing substantially more significant evidence of wrongdoing than what you've raised at AN, you're headed for a WP:BOOMERANG block. signed,Rosguill talk 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:122.177.102.44 reported by User:Tagishsimon (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The moderator is making it personal."
 * 2)  "stop wasting time mate go get a life"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 983227941 by Rich Smith (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 983227941 by Rich Smith (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 983227941 by Rich Smith (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is not here to build an encyclopedia. Is already under a partial ban afaics Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for 72 hours for edit warring and promo. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:cd44:f39f:ef1f:f48f reported by User:Maineartists (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:cd44:f39f:ef1f:f48f

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:

The above is just a small portion of what this unregistered user has been administering on the article page in question. Under difference IP addresses, they have made countless edits: Treemonisha History as though the page was WP:OWN. Far too many edits were unwarranted, unnecessary and without sources to merit inclusion within the article. A discussion was opened on the Talk Page: Substantial Edits and a consensus to revert back to the original content was agreed upon. Whereby the editor in question took their complaint to the Teehouse: Abuse by a privileged editor. Other WP editors weighed in and gave advice; toward which the editor did not heed and continued to make substantial across the board edits on the page in a similar manner, neglecting to enter into any discussion on the Talk Page. A 3RR has now been reached; and a disruptive behavior set. The other IP addresses used: user:80.138.200.129, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:e968:b912:6ff2:e683, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:1568:d985:581c:7f5d, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:2164:ac85:636a:a467. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We may need a page protect until the matter is resolved on the Talk Page. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Slew of anonymous editors disrupting page content (result: declined)
Hello. I am posting to report widespread misconduct through a bunch of accounts run by anonymous editors that are disrupting page content. Those disruptions, made repeatedly and by a variety of editors, can be found in the revision histories of three relevant pages: The Good Place (season 4), List of The Good Place episodes and The Good Place. The specifics of the disruptions are that the series in question ran for 53 episodes, as confirmed by the showrunner Mike Schur, which is the position maintained by the current consensus, and the anonymous editors keep arbitrarily inserting other numbers as their preferred version of the content, in violation of that consensus. The users responsible keep refusing to discuss their issues on the talk page, and do not want to accept the established consensus. In at least one case, multiple warnings have been issued by others and myself, just within the last 24 hours. This is a pretty clear-cut case where the responsibile parties are asserting that their revisions should stand while they at the same time refuse to discuss their viewpoints on the talk page, or to accept the established consensus, which appears to be the prime definition of edit warring. Any action that can be taken to remedy this issue, which is wide-spread and more than any single editor or team of editors can handle, would be very much appreciated. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jgstokes, there is no way this post on this board is going to lead to anything meaningful. This is a matter for discussion on the talk page or the talk page of the WikiProject, and might lead to (semi-)protection; maybe it should be discussed on ANI if it's one or two particular editors. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:LissanX (Result: 1 week for harassment)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has a chronic problem with edit warring. He imposes his own POV and reverts all edits to content. He often harasses several users across multiple pages and reverts all of their edits, trolling them by saying “take it to the talk page” with no intention of doing so. When the edit warring he initiates is reverted, he ignores all edit comments and begins saying he himself is being harassed and trolling the user he’s edit warring with. A brief look at his edit history shows that many, in some cases the vast majority, of his edits are edit warring through arbitrary reverts. The article for Battle of Karbala is just one recent example. Some edits by me were reverted by another user, to which agreed by me to have the issues the user mentioned reverted, but HistoryofIran came in and to reverted all edits, including ones not relating to any issues, including arbitrarily removing content not disputed. He then continued his troll modus operandi of incomprehensibly saying “take it to the talk page”. — LissanX (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * LissanX was recently blocked for the 3rd time (by ) as he violated WP:PERSONAL in relation to user HistoryofIran.- This is his 3rd block in less than three years. When LissanX is unable to enforce his personal opinion into articles, he apparently resorts to violating core WP policies. He also accuses user HistoryofIran of "not participating in talk pages", even though he does.- - LouisAragon (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * LissanX just reverted user HistoryofIran 8 times within ten minutes :
 * (timestamp 23:54)
 * (timestamp: 23:55)
 * (timestamp 23:56)
 * (timestamp 23:56)
 * (timestamp 23:58)
 * (timestamp 23:59)
 * (timestamp 00:00)
 * (timestamp 00:06)
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * LouisAragon pretty much said it all. Also, I assume the reason Lissanx specifically says stuff like 'stop edit warring' and 'take it to the talk page' is because that's what I usually say (which he seemingly doesn't like ), otherwise I've never seen him use those sentences. This and obviously those reverts of his is clearly an indication of retaliation. Also, his comment regarding me is pretty much a testament to his WP:ADHOMINEM and WP:ASPERSIONS issues; Nothing to back it up, just casually insulting/accusing me and whatnot. I've already had the pleasure of being called a racist/Islamophobe/whatever by said user god knows how many times . In today's comment I've had the pleasure of being called a troll and having a chronic problem, let's see how many more chances this user gets to attack me and walk away with it. Also spoiler; The user (User:AhmadLX) who 'agreed' with LissanX never actually did, heck he even reverted him as well (EDIT: twice now ). So all in all just more lies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am going to block LissanX for hounding, not for edit warring--this is really the wrong place. But the edits I looked at, for three of the four linked articles, suggest strongly that LissanX came to these articles with the sole purpose of harassing HistoryofIran. This edit by Lissan, for instance, reverts this edit by History, in a dispute that Lissan had no part of (Lissan had never edited the article before); the generic "take it to the talk page" is the correct advice to give another editor in many circumstances, but here it is just an excuse. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And, consider going to WP:AN to get a one-sided iBan, so that the other editor can no longer follow you around at all. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:TI1880 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 982939400 by ZH8000 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Encyclopedic language."
 * 3)  "Typo."
 * 1)  "Typo."
 * 1)  "Typo."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After having been recently warned about applying and having been warned about  he continues  and neglecting the invitations to discuss the issues (Talk:Basel, Talk:Basel, and Talk:Basel). ZH8000 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. After making contested edits at Basel since 25 September it appears that User:TI1880 is engaged in a long term edit war. They created a sock per Sockpuppet investigations/TI1880/Archive to help them edit war at Basel. With 618 edits, they have never posted on an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikiman122112 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After consensus was reached on the article's talk page, the subject's height was changed to reflect what the most recent and reliable sources report. Wikiman has made four reverts after being told of the talk page discussion in my edit summaries when reverting back to the agreed upon height and also through a message on his user talk page. 3RR warning was given after the third revert as shown above. – 2 . O . Boxing  01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * if Conor is 5’9 then Dan Henderson and Tony Ferguson are 5’11, change their Heights because both are wrong and based of a Sherdog source which you people no longer see as a reliable sources like you did before . After doing that we will have an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The information on other pages has nothing to do with you reverting an edit four times after being made aware of a consensus reached through a discussion, declining to engage on your talk page and receiving a 3RR warning. – 2 . O . Boxing  01:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

for the edit warring, as well as their subsequent behavior here at AN/EW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:BNJ Nilam reported by User:Prolix (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The version being reverted to by the user in question contains an image File:TCS Gitanjali Park Kolkata.jpg which is likely a copyright violation. All attempts to start a discussion with the user have failed.  Pro lix 💬 12:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

BNJ Nillam is now also warring on another page:

2nd Page: I will send him another warning now. --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kolkata_Metro&diff=983364807&oldid=983364544
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kolkata_Metro&diff=983364807&oldid=983364544
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kolkata_Metro&diff=983364807&oldid=983364544
 * Let me know if the disruptive behavior resumes after the block. Izno (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for addressing this expeditiously.  Pro lix 💬 06:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Roelle Dimalanta reported by User:Jumpytoo (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."
 * 2)  ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."
 * 3)  ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continuously adds unsourced content, and does not respond to discussion requests from multiple editors on their talk page other than add a "edit request" edit summary. Possible WP:NOTHERE Jumpytoo Talk 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This editor is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to Otacon, where they add their own name, Roelle Dimalanta, as being the producer, writer and director. They also insert their name throughout the article, poorly written, maybe a language issue, maybe a child, but definitely a WP:CIR problem. Examples of the nonsense they keep on adding to the article:
 * While he was hired, imagined to talk with CW's tv show superhero star Grant Gustin as a.k.a. Barry Allen the Flash and Stephen Amell as Oliver Queen the Green Arrow and saying what his real and nicknames are the bathroom at home. While speaking the 2 tv show superhero stars didn't get to hear what Otagon has to say because both special star Roelle Dimalanta as Otagon and Grant Gustin as Barry Allen the Flash both smile and wave at each other at Ace Comic Con in Seattle.


 * While Roelle's parent want's Roelle to keep secrets from other people about whatever his does and want's to know what his talents and good passions he want's to share and bring happiness and positive impact to others on this earth 1 of his because Otagon's on earth 1 also to be exact. Also, Roelle remembers that his book was tooken away from one of his mentored teachers that he used the book to take notes in it writing what to say and highlighting script lines too. Other students did the show without Roelle while feeling skeptical in the process. It's up to Otagon now to save the day, will Otagon become Roelle's influence to rewrite reality and save the poke universe to gain everything back that Roelle has partially lost? Roelle has a sister named Rochelle and when Roelle recieves email's those email's aren't the same as Otagon's emails. Roelle had the power to message Barry and Oliver online on the poke website Youtube that will save himself, identity and the work he loves to do with others and himself. Also, Otagon was never exiled in the process because he was in perfect shape even after he's done with what he's been assigned to do. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Billy Goblin and User:Doggy54321 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of Billy Goblin's reverts: Diffs of Doggy54321's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:power~enwiki already warned User:Billy Goblin and myself

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I (User:Doggy54321) tried to resolve it on their (User:Billy Goblin) talk page, yet they reverted it without explanation

Comments:

I know that I am self-reporting myself as well, I don’t know if that’s allowed or unusual, but I did break the 3RR and I was engaging in an edit war as well, so to only report the other user would be unfair. I would like for us to be punished equally for our edits here (but only for our actions to the Ariana Grande page, if they get a lifetime ban for something else I wouldn’t like to have that upon myself as well), whether that may be loss of editing privileges, a temporary block, or a lifetime ban. After reflecting, I realized that the admin's will come with correct punishments for both of us, and I shouldn’t be putting in requests as to how we are punished. Also: they have been rude to me ever since I reported them (example) and I don't know why. Have a great day! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:TracyBeker0910 reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: no vio)
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:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 08:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)