Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive420

User:EkoGraf reported by User:Peervalaa (Result: Filer blocked 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: [link]

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

Comments:

User reverted stable article in question four times. Peervalaa (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment: This user has not broken the 3RR, the first diff was from five days ago. Both the user being reported and the reporter are at 3 reverts. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Note: Peervalaa voluntarily agreed to comply with WP:1RR "for any edits you make to any article related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed)". To the best of my knowledge, they've been complying with that, but from what you say above, perhaps my checking is not entirely up to date. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I forgot that applies to anything related to Yugoslavia, Serbia, and/or Kosovo (broadly construed). I thought it only applies to article Battle of Paštrik. But I did ask you before several questions regarding restrictions you put on me and you provided no clear answer. I am also glad you mentioned above issues about unsourced casualties in same article (Battle of Paštrik) which I brought up to you (but with no results). Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (side comment) your approach was correct at that time. New editors shouldn't face admin measures immediately. The should have a period of grace, so that they can reflect on their editing and learn. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you also reflect on your false sockpuppet accusation against me and your stalking? Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I earlier noticed the mention of Peervalaa voluntarily agreeing to comply with 1RR to issues such as the ones in question (due to his earlier blocks) and although he broke that agreement at both Battle of Košare and Kosovo War today, I refrained from including myself in the discussion that was ongoing at your talk page or reporting it because I thought I could resolve the issue with him through discussion. Apparently I was mistaken. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , BTW, I get that some people feel I should have gone further here. My philosophy is to be conservative.  I've already taken a few actions, so I think it's best if I step back and let other admins provide independent evaluations. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 15:03 November 6, 2020, Tags: Undo, Reverted (by EkoGraf)
 * 13:54 November 6, 2020, Tags: Manual Revert, Reverted (by EkoGraf)
 * 11:37 November 6, 2020, Tags: Manual Revert.
 * As you can see, the reporting user has reverted three times in 24h. They have broken their 1RR agreement or whatever it’s called. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I noticed he broke his 1RR obligation, but thought the better course of action was to try and talk to him instead of making a report. Seems I was in error. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yea yea I noticed that. If you had any interactions with them before today’s fiasco, it would have been better to just report as you would have seen their behaviour towards talk pages beforehand. It doesn’t really matter though, they’re being held accountable for their actions anyways. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was my first time interacting with him. EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reported user comment: As the accused I would like to say I made three reverts (not four) after my own initial edit was firstly reverted by editor Peervalaa (which he then proceeded to do two more times). At that point, I left Pervalaa a 3RR warning, and myself stated I would refrain from making any more reverts/edits, because I really have no inclination at edit warring or breaking WP policy. Peervalaa's response was he left a 3RR warning on my talk page, after which he proceeded to make the report here. It should be noted I made attempts at discussing the issue with Pervalaa at both his talk page and at the article's talk page without any success. His response to my attempt at his talk page was to remove my message with an edit summary I was spamming him in broken English (in 10 years of editing Wikiedia first time I have been told my English was not proper) and was irrational. Meanwhile, his response to my attempt at the article's talk page was the report here. Peervalaa has also reverted my edits two more times today at the Kosovo War article and one at Battle of Paštrik, while again rebuking my attempts at discussion on his talk page. In my opinion this behavior isn't in the spirit of assuming good faith from your fellow editors, but the issue seems to already be an ongoing one since Peervalaa's actions, which led to his block three times in the last several months by, are already under discussion by other editors  (which he is also rebuking). In any case, if I am deemed to have broken 3RR I will accept any sanction deemed fit. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you haven't broken the 3RR today, you are at 3 reverts. Peervala has a 1RR placed for all their actions to articles such as the one in question, so they have broken the 1RR already. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you haven't broken the 3RR today, you are at 3 reverts. Peervala has a 1RR placed for all their actions to articles such as the one in question, so they have broken the 1RR already. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have not interacted on Wiki with EkoGraf, but I have with Peervala. All I can say is that it is ridiculous that Peervala has not been banned. The only thing they are practically doing around here is reverting and reverting to their preferred version. And not on one, but on several articles. If this discussion here is not closed with a block, then AE should be the path to follow. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous that you think you decide who gets banned. Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this discussion here is not closed with a block, block him or me? Sorry Ktrimi991, didn't understand you there. EkoGraf (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Block Peervala. I have been seeing Peervala edit warring for a long time now. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. If he really did obligate himself, as stated above, to stick to 1RR to avoid being blocked a fourth time then yes I agree, since he violated 1RR on both the Battle of Kosare and Kosovo War articles today. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment All edits by Peervelaa are reverts of the same content in the same 1-2 articles. Regardless of 3RR, the fact is that the editor has been edit-warring and getting blocked for trying to insert the same content for the past four months. They haven't stopped or used the talkpage at any point. The 1RR imposed by RoySmith had one effect: instead of doing 3 reverts per day, Peervalaa logs in a couple of times per week, does the same revert and then logs out. 1RR hasn't worked, so a longer block and a possible topic ban (Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo War) should be considered.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "They haven't stopped or used the talkpage at any point" - that is your blatant lie and you know it . The problem is no consensus is possible with you people as you simply ignore facts, sources and arguments when they are presented to you. Peervalaa (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per his statement in August it looks to me that Peervalaa had agreed to a 1RR on pages such as this one. (The restriction covers ''). And his three reverts on 6th November do break the 1RR. If so it seems to be time for another block. The recent blocks of Peervalaa have been very long, as much as one month. (To compound the situation, Peervalaa has recently been edit warring *again* at Battle of Paštrik, the page which occasioned all of his prior blocks}. The only way I can see for Peervalaa to avoid another block is for them to accept a permanent ban from all Balkan topics. The alternative might be an indefinite block from Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The alternative may be looking into the issues I am pointing out and sanctioning other users too and not just me. But i guess that's just too much work for some of you here. I already explained my breach of 1RR above for which I apologize. Peervalaa (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After your post here, Peervala reverted again on two articles. Idk why should so much time and energy be given to this particular editor. The only one thing they are doing is edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted articles only once per restrictions that are put on me, and you know very well I broke no rules by doing so. Again, who are you to call for other editors to be banned indefinitely, especially editors you are or could be in conflict with over editing Serb/Yugoslav-related articles? Your block log shows you were also blocked from editing 3 years ago. Peervalaa (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine then. I have not edited these types of articles (I stick to pop culture), and here is my opinion. First off, please don’t bring up any one else’s block logs unless beneficial to the conversation. I’ve been blocked two times, how does that contribute to the conversation? My opinion is that Peervalaa deserves an indefinite topic ban at least. They have been edit warring and disrupting articles nonstop. Nevermind the 1RR or 3RR, edit warring is edit warring. I reverted articles only once per restrictions that are put on me - that’s still edit warring if you continue to disrupt the article. For example, this edit that you made three hours ago is still edit warring as you are reverting while in a talk conversation. That’s my opinion. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And who are you again? I don't remember ever talking to you before. You said it yourself that you "stick to pop culture" so that may explain your baseless accusation of me "disrupting" article. I am going to bring up someone elses block especially if that someone has also been blocked and is calling for me to be banned indefinitely. "Deserves an indefinite topic ban at least" - at least? Would me being publicly flogged be more fitting punishment? Have you even looked into the issues Battle of Paštrik has for example (a reason for my sanctions)? Outcome that has no consensus, sources which prove my edits of the outcome of the battle are left while result is changed into opposite of what those sources say. And that has been done numerous times, by what I assume are someones sockpuppets. Arbitrary casualty numbers edited in without any actual source to back them up or worse arbitrary numbers added in while sources say otherwise. Many times I pointed that out to admin and now here. And nothing is done about it.


 * My edit which you pointed put as "edit war" is a stable version of Battle of Košare and if you actually bothered to visit edit history you would have seen its been there for a while. Removing that part without previous discussion on talkpage is what EkoGraf did (and that is why we are here) and as I explained in the edit summary changes will come once consensus over them is reached. Peervalaa (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok then, hi I’m Doggy54321 and I’m a generally unproblematic Wikipedian. I have been following this edit war and have looked into your contributions. If you read the conversation above, I have been involved. I do stick to pop culture, but I also have random pages like this page saved to my watchlist, and get involved in conversations when I’m bored/the Wikiflow on my Watchlist is slow and the only edits popping up are the ones from this page. From what I’ve seen, you have been blocked three times since July for edit warring at the same page, so my "baseless accusation" is actually justified. What’s more is you continue to disrupt and engage in edit wars. I’ve been blocked twice in the past month for edit warring, and I’ve tried to steer clear from the "undo" button as much as possible. You’ve been blocked three times and continue to engage. "Deserves an indefinite topic ban at least" - at least? Would me being publicly flogged be more fitting punishment? - no, I was gonna say maybe a temporary block would be better, that way you could learn from your mistakes and come back and try not to revert as much. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating yourself and it's obvious you have not looked up problems in that article which I mentioned. Peervalaa (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * – User:Peervala blocked indef. They are unwilling to limit their reverts and have previously been blocked for as long as a month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:24.249.54.254 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
Page: Page: User being reported:

has been repeatedly going to pages and reverting additions repeatedly while falsely claiming there are no citations. His user talk page history is also full of complains by other users who have complained about the same thing.

Just in the last few hours he has taken place in the following disruptive edits/edit warring:

Case 1: repeatedly reverting article Tallboy (bomb) while refusing to acknowledge an entire section about the Korean war.

Case 2: repeatedly reverting article Boeing B-29 Superfortress while ALSO refusing to acknowledge the entire section about the Korean war.

Case 3: reverting article MG 151 cannon by falsely claiming there was no citation. There is clearly a citation at the end.

Since Bilcat clearly has a long history of behaving this way listen in his user history, I request some sort of action be taken.

24.249.54.254 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for adding unsourced content.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The content is clearly sourced. There are entire sections listed as sources.


 * Where are you getting the idea that there are no sources?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B020:FA45:9157:DAE0:17A0:2905 (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just looked at BilCat's contributions. No 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Filing IP, Special:Contributions/24.249.54.254, has been blocked 36 hours by User:Oshwah for persistent addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:24.128.184.241 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported:

User 24.128.184.241 has repeatedly blanked and reverted the page for Integralism despite attempts for mediation and support.

The following are revisions to the page that have occurred: 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

Despite repeated efforts, including a message to the IP's talk page, they have repeatedly blanked, reverted, and violated NPOV. Please enact action.

Pbritti (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IP has not yet been warned about 3RR, nor violated it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Update 11 November
IP user 24.128.184.241 has, despite multiple requests, repeatedly reverted the page for Integralism despite my efforts to mediate. There was a brief exchange on the talk page that evidenced the IP attempting to publish their personal opinion rather, followed by two reversions outside of a consensus. If someone could please intervene, the version the IP keeps reverting to contains NPOV and typo issues. Not sure if C.Fred could help. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP user seems to be warring to insert a personal point of view. He declares the Second Vatican Council to be heretical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:194.223.31.39 reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [987641248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [987005734]

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

Comments:


 * This editor is terminally disruptive across many articles, and completely ignored the latest (since thare have been many) request to discuss edits on the articles talk pages. A complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050 has already seen several pages semi-protected to stop them edit-warring. FDW777 (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. See also the ANI complaint mentioned by User:FDW777. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Eulerfan1999 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Bodo includes L2 speakers."
 * 2)  "Bodo/Boro is not group its a language we taking top most figure or total language strength."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 987337167 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 987174828 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Numbers, November 2020 */ new section"

Comments:

This POV pushing user wants to add the number "1416125" for Assam (census 2011) in the article infbox which is number of speakers of the "Bodo language group" (bolded as BODO in the link), which includes Kachari, Mech and other languages. The total number of speakers instead as per the source is "1,407,711", mentioned near the "Bodo/Boro" in the link. As an analogy, the census includes Rajbanshi, Chakma and Hajong among others in the "Bengali" group. And a lot more in the "Hindi" group, including Bhojpuri, Mewati, Garhwali, etc, all of these languages and their speakers are independently notable and have Wikipedia articles. We do not include the group numbers, but the specific language figures in respective ethnolinguistic articles and related pages. Pinging Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Eulerfan1999 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Marcelrayduriez reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but the consensus among other users seems clear.

Comments: The user has also received a final warning over self-promotion. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note:, This user (Marcelrayduriez) also reported in AIV. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment by Toccata quarta: The user has now blanked my user page. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef, for being a promotion-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Vallee01 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Although not breaking the 3 edit revert rule, there has been a long a grueling discussion on the page anarcha feminim on the image. After a long, debate the consensus was to remove the image of the collage and to keep the picture of a protest in Cologne. However Sangdeboeuf has completely ignored this, the editor has changed the image without notifying anyone and not discussing it on the talk page. The editor is attempting to circumvent the process of discussion instead simply ignoring it. Despite the long discussion process and final result. Both on the lead image and on the raised fist, both of which were still in discussion. Despite stating to "see talk,. Sangdeboeuf did not state anything of the talk for this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcha-feminism&diff=987303974&oldid=987284653, or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcha-feminism&oldid=987304270, [[or this one|[] despite being a long discussion in which there either was a no consensus, or the consensus was directly against Sangdeboeuf, as an example removing the lead image and replacing it with the anarcha feminist flag. Sangdeboeuf did not notify anyone of this removal, or say anything to the already existent discussion. Sangdeboeuf has ignored discussion instead to change the article to how they want to be, edit warring and consistently ignoring the talk page. Vallee01 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No evidence of a violation. Further, has engaged in discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What about this: [|4] [|5], a long discussion on the talk page, that was ignored? How is that allowed? Vallee01 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion of either the addition or removal of the teddy-bear image. You boldly added it, I reverted the addition. As for the raised-fist logo, there is indeed a discussion on the talk page, in which you seem to be ignoring the arguments of two other editors. Final note: I wasn't alerted to this report, although I found it anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You simply removed images without notifying anybody, you did not mention anything to the talk page as the removal of the imae. Your stating overly vague statements what was I ignoring? Please state. Moreover you are automatically pinged with . Vallee01 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You specifically ignored my comment, "This isn't an article about radical feminism or anarchism in general. Images should relate specifically to the topic of the article." Instead you filed this frivolous AN3 report. Regarding the teddy bear, I'm not required to notify anyone when I revert unhelpful edits. See WP:BRD. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Rmjowett reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 988300789 by Alexbrn (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please find a better definition if you're not happy with this"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 988297533 by Alexbrn (talk)"
 * 4)  "You clearly know nothing about naturopathy. The history still caries forward through to this very day. Do your research then get back to me."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Note even since this report has been filed, the editor has continued hammering away at the Naturopathy lede. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:10stone5 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first edit
 * 2) second edit
 * 3) third edit
 * 4) fourth edit
 * 5) fifth edit
 * 6) sixth and seventh edits (consecutive, probably counts more like one)
 * 7) eight edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly making POV changes to the page, such as calling the sources "left-wing" or "mainstream media" in-text, adding statements not present in sourcing (such as commentary about Regulation A offerings), adding statements like "claimed" and "alleged" (WP:SAY), and changing RfC agreed-upon text without discussion (RfC). They are not exactly reverts, but each edit is making approximately the same changes, in various places in the article. I am surprised to see this behavior from someone with the reviewer userright and over 10,000 edits, who has been editing fairly consistently (at least since ~July). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring and POV-pushing. This page is under the American politics discretionary sanctions. This creates an expectation of neutral editing and high-quality sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:100.2.103.24 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Another user, User:Rikfaz, has continued the edit war; I think this user maybe linked to 100.2.103.24. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened an SPI into this editor. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page fully protected for one week by User:Johnuniq per WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Wario-Man reported by User:Nasheen (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golshifteh_Farahani&oldid=988474300]

Diffs of Wario-Man's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golshifteh_Farahani&diff=988474300&oldid=988474089]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golshifteh_Farahani&diff=988473612&oldid=988473433]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golshifteh_Farahani&diff=988441639&oldid=988412558]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wario-Man&diff=988474889&oldid=988474559]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hey guys, this is yet again about 1 person (Wario-Man) trying to own a Wikipedia article (Golshifteh Farahani) for himself by banning away all other editors. This is excatly why dedicated new editors who actually try to contribute feel so helpless and just give up altogether. Keep in mind the reverted additions that he edit wars against are all sourced by ABC News, no less. Cheers. Nasheen (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is also Sockpuppet investigations/Latecappu about the filer. The Banner talk 12:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Observation
 * Thank you, The Banner  . I just added a link to this case over there as well. Hopefully to keep it all in sync. Nasheen (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:BOOMERANG, abusing both 3RR noticeboard and warning templates. The user has just violated BLP. Why it's a BLP violation; please see these diffs. Please take a look at the revision history of that article; started since 11 May 2020. The user has been reported for sockpuppetry; see Sockpuppet investigations/Latecappu. So he decided to come here while there is no 3RR and all of my reverts had a valid reason: reverted because he added unsourced stuff to a BLP article. Reverted because sockpuppetry is obvious. Reverted because the source is unreliable and does not support the claim. Three reverts and all of them have edit summaries (reason). As I said, this is a WP:BOOMERANG especially after the SPI case. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that even after Wario-Man got Admin Reported for Edit Warring 3 times in a row. Nasheen (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wario-Man kept deleting all the evidence and warnings from his Talk page, again and again.. Nasheen (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The user is WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND; ignoring WP rules and guidelines. Please review both article revison history (from 11 May 2020), the SPI report, his edits and how he used warning templates on my talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look what he has done to my talk page. He continues restoring his meaningless warning messages; abusing warning message templates and talk page policies. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And he did this (editing his filled report) after his edit was reverted by Wikaviani, received a warning from Wikaviani, and Wikaviani's comment on here. Refused to use talk page and ignoring WP:BURDEN, filled a report, then acting as if he used talk page after the first revert or before coming to this board. This is the pure abuse of 3RR noticeboard. And take a look at his edits on the SPI report, only spamming irrelevant stuff. I really think this users is WP:NOTHERE and internet troll. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case, filer tried to change long standing content without any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page, even after having been reverted, thus failing to behave according to WP:BRD. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration,  ---Wikaviani . A discussion was added to the article's Talk page just now; Featuring that ABC News source regarding Golshifteh Farahani, that Wario-Man keeps on dismissing time and time again. Nasheen (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Filer blocked for a week for clearly disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user reverted an edit of a section that had stood for almost two weeks. In so doing, they replaced sourced content with material copied from Ancient Greek philosophy. I have tried engaging the user on the talk page, but they have been responding with bad faith arguments that make no attempt at finding a solution. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Stood almost for two weeks." Sorry, but I was busy and was not devoting enough volunteer time to Wikipedia to address the introduction of these errors as quickly as might be desired. Such a "two week" perspective ignores how long the prior content stood -- BTW, we're talking about ANCIENT philosophy here -- to which my edits were largely reverting. After User: Keepcalmandchill began edit warring I opened up discussions on the relevant talk pages so that other editors with experience in these subjects would be alerted to join in. As Keepcalmandchill appears to believe, alerting other editors that there's an issue going on is something to be called "bad faith arguments, and represents a rejection of an "attempt at finding a solution."

On this matter as well as on the matter of what the content of the article should be, I do not agree with Keepcalmandchill. I suggest that for the time being that this matter be pushed down to the respective talk pages for further analysis by the editors. Teishin (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks like a two-person edit war that's been going on since October 30. One admin response might be to block both editors. As an alternative, they could both agree to make no more edits until agreement is reached on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How so? I have not reverted any edits between October 30th and today. I moved some content to Ancient Greek philosophy and replaced that with new content (that was sourced). Nobody made any objections to this until today. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Keepcalmandchill consider that the pace of editing differs by subject matter. I see in the contribs that Keepcalmandchill edits a lot regarding current politics. In such matters a couple of weeks matters a lot. However here we are discussing ancient philosophy. Two weeks is nothing. Teishin (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keepcalmandchill, you have made three reverts starting with your 23:23 edit on 12 November. How does that not count as edit warring? Do we need to fully protect both articles to stop this? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that not within the three-revert rule? I have tried to find a resolution on the talk page. You will see there that my position is based on sources, while the other position is not. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add that I meant 'today' as in the last 24hrs. Furthermore, I am absolutely happy to continue discussing these changes, but as the talk page shows, it is not progressing at all with this user. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keepcalmandchill your expectations about how quickly things should happen are unrealistic. You lodge a complaint here instead of opening a discussion on the Talk page. Then when I open a discussion on the Talk page you conclude after just a few hours that "it is not progressing at all." Regarding your claim that your edits are based on sources, you do not seem to understand what your sources are talking about such that the information can be restructured into a Wikipedia article. This article is structured chronologically. Some schools arose in the Classical period and continued through the Hellenistic period. So, sure, a source will refer to them as "Hellenistic" as they were indeed active in the Hellenistic period, but since the article is structured chronologically, with a discussion of the Classical period, these Classical schools need to be included in the Classical period as they arose and were active in that period as well. The state of the article before you started changing it addressed this matter in a way that made it clear that these schools arose in the Classical period and flourished in the Hellenistic period whereas your changes introduced confusion on this matter.Teishin (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. Per this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teishin&type=revision&diff=988413633&oldid=986202319&diffmode=source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Just like with Western philosophy, no attempt to resolve a conflict over a semantic issue to which I proposed a resolution + removing sourced material. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The accusation that there has been "no attempt to resolve the conflict" is plainly false. I opened a discussion on the Talk page to attempt to resolve this conflict. Teishin (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. Per this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Covaroo reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

After returning from a 24-hour block:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  and. And then later:

Comments: I'm just trying to fix up an undefined reference and add a couple of   parameters. Persistent reversions without explanations, no engagement on talk page.


 * – 24 hours. User:Covaroo has been edit warring since 8 November to retain a broken reference. Their versions in the page history all have a red error message at the bottom. Covaroo did not respond to Mikeblas's question on the article talk page. They also deleted a warning of the 3RR report from their user talk without replying here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping . User:Covarooo has returned from that block period only to . Not sure if I'm meant to open a new entry here, or escalate (to ANI?) or ... ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked User:Covaroo indef. If there is some rationale for the unusual behavior which has continued since their first block expired, they can explain it in their unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:M*tesh reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 Britishbiographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic"
 * 2)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic"
 * 3)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and his success in the field of physics. The film stars Eddi"
 * 4)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British Biographical Romantic Drama Film"
 * 5)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
 * 6)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
 * 1)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British Biographical Romantic Drama Film"
 * 2)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
 * 3)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"
 * 1)  "The Theory of Everything is a 2014 British biographical romantic drama film directed by James Marsh. Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Campaign to describe films as "British" */ new section"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Theory of Everything (2014 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Similar behaviour on a range of other pages as well (eg The Imitation Game) - arguably now drifted into vandalism rather than edit-warring. ninety:one  18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. The issue of getting proper sources to call a film 'British' appears to be described well in this post by the filer. This is not the first time we've seen a revert war about the nationality of a film. The people who want to make these changes are sometimes quite persistent. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bringlights reported by User:4thfile4thrank (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Using word that may introduce bias - Puffery: "Great""
 * 2)  "Previous writing was not in accordance with the source from TRAC. It is possible that the previous writing was intended to be misleading. And I have reported some users."
 * 3)  "Previous writing was not in accordance with the source from TRAC. It is possible that the previous writing was intended to be misleading."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 988633132 by 182.1.228.34 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Islamic Defenders Front."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:4thfile4thrank/Archives/2020/12 (December) Comments:

I attempted to discuss it after one revert cycle, but he started sending frivolous reports of vandalism to everyone who reverted him, continued reverting further, and then frivolously reported Iridescent for vandalism after the user warned him for edit warring. I am thinking about WP:NOTHERE. I discussed it at the bottom of my talk page, but he then frivolously reported me for vandalism. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 20:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as pretty much every edit is disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B reported by User:YborCityJohn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=987426130

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B02F:C29E:1594:3BEF:81A2:153B

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Changing domains.google to domains.google.com.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Put a warning on their talk page.

Comments:

Not only are they being disruptive with their edits, violating the 3RR and they are aggressive towards other Wikipedian i.e. myself using words like SCREW U A-HOLE etc. I have refrained from making another revert as it may put me in violation of the 3RR rule. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for personal attacks in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Atelerixia reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user in question came off a block for edit warring to restart one of their previous edit wars. CMD (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Atelerixia is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Dependent territory without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLINY and User:Tvstationfan101 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&oldid=985398302]

Diffs of BlueboyLINY's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=988434865&oldid=988434577]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=988432852&oldid=988061538]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=987942062&oldid=987622612]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=987622246&oldid=987622079]

Diffs of Tvstationfan101's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=988434577&oldid=988432852]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=988061538&oldid=987942062]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=987622612&oldid=987622246]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMBQ-CD&diff=987622079&oldid=987621857]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueboyLINY&curid=63893046&diff=988437406&oldid=984633356] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tvstationfan101&curid=64429396&diff=988437484&oldid=988435010]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Who's right? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't see this request but I have responded to a request at WP:RFPP by full protecting the page. I have told the warring parties that it will stay locked until they work it out. They have been careful to avoid WP:3RR by spacing out their edits, but the war has been going on for months. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 year by User:MelanieN as explained above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Hanoi Road reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Consensus and sources clearly against the editor in question. Talk participation has been reams of aspersions and original research, but very little actual engagement. Edit summaries in the reverts are undermined by the talk participation, where Hanoi Road acknowledges neither having consensus nor their preferred version having been a longstanding one. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that this user's entire editing history on this article is pretty much the same, edit warring to insert a change against consensus and that contradicts the academic consensus in sources. From the comments in talk it's clear they have a strong view on Irish nationalism, which appears to be clouding their judgement. WCM email 01:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverts continue despite the editor having acknowledged the filing here by responding (in a fairly ridiculous manner) on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus this insanity. There are obviously serious behavioral issues beyond just failure to observe 3RR. Grandpallama (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks. Nationalist edit warring about the Irishness of Shackleton. A perennial dispute. Wouldn't it be great if people could follow consensus? This user was previously blocked for edit warring on the same article. They were also blocked 72 hours on October 30. Any admin may unblock if they think the person will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Ronaldo3401 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated reinstatement of episode articles contrary to existing consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers), at this article and at Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers; despite notes on article and user talk page. Also some possible/likely sockpuppeteering (Sockpuppet investigations/Alvrix3108), currently at the "my brother did it" stage (User_talk:JalenFolf).-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bluerules reported by User:Flyer22 Frozen (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The editor clearly does not understand our WP:Edit warring policy, or is purposefully misusing it. The editor claims that because they are correct on this matter, they are exempt from edit warring. As anyone can see, there is no such exemption at WP:3RR or anyone else at the Edit warring policy for a case such as this. Even if they are correct about what the accurate billing is at the article, that does not give the editor the right to revert over and over again. Even for the actual exemptions at WP:3RRNO, it states, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." I told this editor that they do not need to violate 3RR to edit war and that they can wait until the matter is resolved. Instead of waiting, they reverted again and proceeded to assert here and here that I am engaging in vandalism by reverting them. So, apparently, the editor doesn't understand our WP:Vandalism policy either. Regardless of whether not blocking Bluerules is deemed appropriate in this case, the editor needs to understand our edit warring and vandalism policies and be warned/advised in that regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was correcting the fact that Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker, not a main cast member. This is not a claim; this a fact. By reverting my edit, IJBall and Flyer22 Frozen restored incorrect information. Incorrect information on Wikipedia must be removed immediately. Bluerules (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While technically Edit warring, this doesn't merit a block. There is currently a Talk page discussion. The editor in question has apparently checked the WP:Primary source in the question – it's just awaiting other editors to confirm this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That said, Bluerules should be clearly admonished for characterizing Flyer22 Frozen's simple following of the rules as "vandalism" – that should not go uncommented. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Frozen was continually restoring incorrect information and it did not appear he was acting out of good faith. He made a non-edit simply to admonish me in his edit summary and that's why I did not believe his restoration of this incorrect information was in good faith, which would be vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IJBall, this isn't necessarily about blocking. That's why I stated, "Regardless of whether not blocking Bluerules is deemed appropriate in this case, the editor needs to understand our edit warring and vandalism policies and be warned/advised in that regard." It's about the editor not understanding our WP:Edit warring policy and reverting away on the basis of some false exemption. It's also about the editor not understanding our WP:Vandalism policy and throwing the word "vandalism" around willy-nilly. We should not let the editor continue to think that they are exempt in a case like this and that it's appropriate to do that. Otherwise, this will be an issue in the future. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not "some false exemption". This was a case of incorrect information that needed to be removed immediately from the article. I understand the issue over editing warring when there isn't a clear answer, but this was a matter where verfiably correct information was being reverted and like I said above, incorrect information cannot be retained on articles. As for the vandalism comment, that was based on the fact that you made a non-edit simply to admonish me in the edit summary. By that point, it did not appear you were acting out of good faith and if you are restoring incorrect information not out of good faith, that is vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This latest post of yours reinforces what I mean about your WP:Competence. There is nothing -- nothing at all -- at WP:3RRNO about removing incorrect information immediately. Even in the case of WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO states, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It's not like the case in question is the type of BLP matter that WP:3RRNO is talking about anyway. Except for our BLP policy, there is nothing anywhere about removing incorrect information immediately. And in the case of billing information, that you state that you are correct is not good enough. Your content was disputed by an editor who disagreed with you. You were supposed to talk it out on the talk page...without edit warring/forcing your version in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not set in stone. My point has simply been that there are exemptions to the three-revert rule and just because it is not a specified exemptions does not discount it as an exemption. Wikipedia is about accuracy and I do not believe any editor would leave information they knew was incorrect on article. They would correct it as soon as they spot it. Another editor being misinformed does not justify retaining blatantly incorrect information for an indeterminate amount of time. For example, I once incorrectly wrote on the Miami Marlins article that they were the youngest expansion franchise to win the World Series. Another editor fixed this to say they were the second-youngest behind the Arizona Diamondbacks. That's not a mere "disagreement" - it's a fact that the Diamondbacks are the youngest. If I disputed that editor, the editor would be exempt from the three-revert rule because the article cannot have incorrect information and incorrectly say the Marlins are the youngest World Series winners. But I did what I was supposed to do - check to confirm that the Marlins are the second-youngest behind the Diamondbacks - and by checking the factual information, a conflict was averted. This is also not a matter of mere "disagreement". Whether an actor is main or guest on a television series is a verifiable fact that must be accurately reflected in the article. I made certain to check the opening credits of episodes to confirm that Parker was a guest actor, not a series regular. I checked again after IJBall insisted that he was main and the credits still said he was a guest star. I did not merely state that I was correct, but did the necessary research to prove this change was correct. I pointed to the fact that Parker was billed below another guest actor in the season 2 premiere, demonstrating that contrary to IJBall's assertion that he was promoted to main in season 2, he remained alongside the guest stars in the credits. This was not a matter that needed to go to the talk page when simply watching the opening credits of episodes - which are all easily and legally accessible on the ABC website - would have settled it. IJBall, by his own admission, had simply remembered Parker being in the main cast. Again, I had just checked the credits to confirm he wasn't. You were supposed to have seen for yourself which edit was correct and if you watched the credits, you would have also seen Parker as a guest star. Instead, you jumped to conclusions and restored incorrect information. If the article has incorrect information, then the article must be corrected. Bluerules (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without even reading all of that, I can see that the problem with your understanding of how Wikipedia works is more extensive than I thought. You stated, "Wikipedia is about accuracy." You need to read WP:Truth. And while that's an essay, the "not truth" aspect, which was a part of policy for a long time, still holds up in various ways. When information is challenged and another editor reverts you, arguing that they are right, that is about disagreement. And you are not free to edit war in such a case. Not unless you have a WP:3RRNO exemption. And even then, you are not exactly free to do that...per that part of the policy I cited. You claimed an exemption when you had none. And now you want to state that "Guidelines are not set in stone" and that they don't have to explicitly state something for one to claim that they state something? What? Plus, credit matters have been interpreted in different ways by various editors for years. Our guidelines have been changed on them more than once, whether for television or film. You stated, "Guidelines are not set in stone." Well, WP:Edit warring is not a guideline. It's a policy. And you repeatedly violated it without a good reason, as if it was some emergency to put in your version. As for "[I was] supposed to have seen for [myself] which edit was correct and if [I] watched the credits, [I] would have also seen Parker as a guest star."? Don't try to shift the blame of your unacceptable behavior. Experienced editors should be very concerned that you think you can edit war left and right as long as you think/argue that you are right. They should be very concerned about you not being able to see why you were wrong to edit war like that. I'm not going to keep replying to you since you apparently just don't get it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And I have no doubt that you not understanding our WP:Edit warring policy is why three of your four blocks block listings have been about edit warring. Surprisingly, you haven't been blocked in years. But if you keep on this path, that will change. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring the issue here. Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker in both seasons. That is a fact. It is a fact that in every episode he appeared in, his name was listed in the "guest starring" segment of the credits. This is not about viewpoints; this is about clear-cut, verifiable facts. This is truth - truth proven in writing. Once again, IJBall had simply misremembered Parker's cast status on the series. This may have technically been a "disagreement", but it was a disagreement over factual, verifiable information. In this case, the information I added was correct and the information you and IJBall were restoring was incorrect. Correct, factual information must always replace incorrect information on Wikipedia.
 * What are you advocating for? Are you saying it's acceptable to include factually incorrect information in an article for an indeterminate amount of time? By your logic, an editor would not be exempt from the three-revert rule if he continually reverted another editor claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden on the 2020 United States presidential election article. By your logic, it would be acceptable for the page to retain incorrect information saying Trump beat Biden until the issue was resolved on the talk page, which could result in the article having incorrect information on it for at least days. The article would misinform people and continue to misinform people. That is why immediately removing blatantly incorrect information is a priority over avoiding an edit war. You keep claiming this is not an exemption from the three-revert rule, but do not specify why. Again, just because it is not specified as an exemption does not mean it would not be considered an exemption. The "good reason" for my edits was to make certain the article was factually correct. If you think I'm exaggerating the need for articles to be factually correct as "some emergency", then you would be fine with having the 2020 election article say Trump beat Biden for an indeterminate amount of time instead of fixing the incorrect information. That is the wrong approach towards incorrect information on Wikipedia, especially when it can mislead people. Incorrect information has to be removed as soon as it is spotted.
 * You question my assertion that guidelines are not set in stone, but then acknowledge "guidelines have been changed", which was exactly my point. You can argue semantics, but policy or guideline - they change. You've acknowledged that they've changed. Again, just because the policy doesn't say correcting incorrect information is an exemption doesn't mean it's not an exemption and I am certain that other editors will agree that incorrect information cannot be retained on articles. It is more important for an article to have correct information and not misinform readers than it is to avoid edit warring and retain incorrect information that could mislead people. If other editors concur this should be an exemption, even if it isn't explicitly stated as such, then it is an exemption.
 * What you have done is unacceptable. You restored incorrect information over correct information. You didn't look into which information was correct or incorrect, which was easy to do. You simply hit the undo button, reigniting an issue that appeared to be over. You don't even seem to understand what this issue was about. You talk in broad terms, but ignore the specific issue over a guest star being incorrectly identified as main cast. While guidelines have changed, someone who has "guest starring" appear before their name is undeniably a guest star. And you misrepresent what I was trying to accomplish. You would rather insult, vilify me, and bring up matters from almost a decade ago. That is unacceptable behavior on your part.
 * I can acknowledge that the matters I was blocked over did not deal with right and wrong issues, at least not at the time (the first edit I was blocked over is now supported by the guidelines and the article now contains it). I don't think/argue that I'm factually right when I'm not factually right. When you actually look at the specific issue, this is a matter of being factually right. It is factually right to say Craig Parker was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker because he was a guest star on Legend of the Seeker. What's concerning is you think it's acceptable for an article to contain factually incorrect information and not have it removed immediately. We are supposed to stop incorrect information, not contribute to it. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, you don't get it. For example, you argued, "By your logic, an editor would not be exempt from the three-revert rule if he continually reverted another editor claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden on the 2020 United States presidential election. By your logic, it would be acceptable for the page to retain incorrect information saying Trump beat Biden until the issue was resolved on the talk page, which could result in the article having incorrect information on it for at least days." Editors should obviously immediately revert in those cases! Immediately reverting in those cases is supported by our WP:BLP policy and WP:3RRNO. Your case is not! As for your past behavior? I was pointing to a pattern of edit warring that continues to this day. It is only a matter of time before you are blocked again for edit warring. You need not be blocked in this case for an admin to set you straight. And if an admin does not, it seemingly won't matter anyway since you are locked into thinking you were right to edit war. I'm not entertaining the rest of what you stated because it sounds like something a newbie would state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You say you're "not going to keep replying to [me] since [I] apparently just don't get it" and then you reply again. At this point, it seems like you simply wish to argue with me and insult me for reasons I do not understand. You claim my hypothetical scenario is supported by policy and the Legend of the Seeker matter is not, but do not specify why, despite both being the same scenario. Both are matters where incorrect information is restored over correct information and the correct information must be retained. Once again, you completely ignore what this case was about. Once again, it is a verifiable fact that Craig Parker was a guest star throughout the entirety of Legend of the Seeker. You brought up incidents from seven years ago at the earliest to vilify me, while failing to prove this "pattern of edit warring continues to this day" because it hasn't. You haven't cited any recent example of me edit warring because there are none.
 * I would at least like to see you acknowledge the issue over Craig Parker being incorrectly identified as a main cast member. I would like to understand your case for keeping factually incorrect information in an article. You are dead set on this notion that it's merely my "viewpoint" that Parker was a guest star, but this is a fact. If you could at least give a reason why this is not a fact, that would be constructive. But again, you would rather use this space to insult me. My edits were removing factually incorrect information in favor of factually correct information - absolutely nothing about viewpoints - and if you do not believe that is acceptable, then that's something I don't understand. Bluerules (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Neither party broke 3RR. But both User:Bluerules and User:Flyer22 Frozen are warned for edit warring. The next time one of you reverts at Legend of the Seeker you are risking a block unless you have first obtained consensus for your change on the article talk page. Bluerules' use of the term vandalism is incorrect and this had better not continue. Misuse is blockable, and this may be your only warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, given all that I stated above and that I'm the one who asked Bluerules to take the matter to the article talk page, IJBall took the matter to the article talk page after that, and I took it to a WikiProject, why in the world would I revert again? Although I reverted twice, experienced editors, including admins, revert twice every now and then, and I'm not known for edit warring. I clearly stopped after Bluerules reverted me for the second time. This is not some case where Bluerules and I behaved the same way. Both IJBall and I reverted Bluerules twice. Both IJBall and I took the initiative of trying to discuss the matter. And Bluerules kept reverting and reverting. He reverted two editors four two times each and used a false exemption. So not the same thing whatsoever. But I appreciate that he was at least warned. Maybe now he will understand that the so-called exemption was not an exemption. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are protesting the warning demonstrates why you are being warned. You agitated the edit war by contributing to it, did not check which information was correct, and have repeatedly made ad hominem attack against me in this space. If you do not understand why you were warned, then you may become involved in another situation like this. Bluerules (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Protesting? By noting that our behaviors are completely different? I was warned because I reverted you twice. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do not put words into EdJohnston's mouth. As is clear by Darkknight2149's commentary below and your response to him, you still do not get it. That is a significant difference between my behavior and yours. You would have kept reverting and reverting. No doubt about it. Move on. You condescending to me makes not a bit of sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You were warned because you joined in and participated in the edit war. Your response was to protest the warning and insist how much better you are than me - and by the way, policy dictates that other editor's behavior does not justify your own behavior. And you continue to use this space to insult with ad hominem attacks; accusing me of me condescending while you condescend, telling me to move on while you still you reply. I asked for a discussion over this specific matter. You would not provide it. All you provide are accusations and insults, which do not help at all. Bluerules (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like talking to a wall. I'm not interested in your false narratives, and that includes your "I asked for a discussion over this specific matter." claim. The next time you go asserting "I can edit war as much as I want to. No discussion needed. I'm exempt.", you'll see what happens. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not interested, why do you continue just slinging ad hominems? I pointed out right here that you were ignoring the specific issue and you still refuse to discuss it. Using this space to vilify other editors doesn't help Wikipedia one bit. Bluerules (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although there are edit warring exemptions for obvious vandalism, BLP violations, and copyright/NFCC issues, there is no such exemption for information you believe to be false, especially when your claim that the information is false is disputed.  Dark  knight  2149  23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is not an exemption for information "believed" to be false. This was information I knew for a fact was false after checking the primary source (the show's opening credits) and other editors who checked the primary source also saw it was false. Factual, verifiable information can be disputed, but it is still factual. If this specific situation is not a factual, verifiable situation, it would be helpful to explain why this specific situation is not a factual, verifiable situation. It is not helpful to discuss this matter broadly. Bluerules (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Even so, there is no edit warring exemption for "I checked the sources and am pretty sure this is false. Others are wrong for disagreeing with me." There are more constructive ways of going about it than to continue reverting.  Dark knight  2149  01:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of being "pretty sure" it was false, it was a case of knowing for a fact that it was false. The other editor, by his own admission, had simply remembered the false information to be correct. Again, the discussion should be over the specific situation, not a broad situation. In the case of on-screen credits, it is an easy matter of checking the on-screen credits to confirm what is true and what is false. Bluerules (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. To quote WP:EW, When WP:3RRNO mentions "obvious vandalism", it is referring to stuff like this. As for "the other editor did this", 's warning above applies to anyone who continues the edit war.  Dark  knight  2149  01:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did it not matter in this situation? Like I mentioned above, what is the difference - if there is any - between incorrectly identifying a television guest star as a main cast member and incorrectly identifying an election's loser as the winner? If I was reverted on the Miami Marlins article for incorrectly saying they were the youngest expansion team to win the World Series, would that editor be blocked for engaging in edit warring, despite fixing factually incorrect information? When the topic mandates discussion, yes, claiming the edits are right is no defense. But unless I am completely misinterpreting what I am being told, I would like to know why it is acceptable to leave factually incorrect information in an article for an indeterminate time if there's dispute, especially when the information can be easily confirmed. Bluerules (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:WikiCorrection0283 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Withdrawn, Comment)
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:

Long lasting edit warring with other users, making a big change before making a consensus on the talk page. Plus the user looks suspicious as it is a single purpose account. Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have now left a message for Beshogur, I am new to Wiki and wasn't aware of the talk page process, I have now left my comments on the article talk page, as well as a new reference. I won't make any further edits, I'll leave it to the experienced editors who I assume will take my talk page comments and new reference into account. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Also I'd add that, if you follow the whole page history, the changes I initially introduced were gradual and supported by other editors, but then a mass reversion occurred by another editor, and this was repeated. That editor only recently went to the talk page - so surely the other editor should have gone to the talk page in the first place instead of massively deleting content that was gradually added (see relevant article edit history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) WikiCorrection0283 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing my request. User did revert his edit. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, User:Beshogur. Please be careful with this article. If admins see that it's turning into a nationalist battle, they may decide to apply full protection. To avoid this outcome, try to be diplomatic. Try to find support on the talk page for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Lelekas reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 988516132 by Tvx1 (talk)"
 * 2)  "The guy who inserted the graphic had a reason. You have not a reson to delete this. All you show is that you do not know what WRC is."
 * 3)  "We used the same graphic in the 2019 season. I cannot understand your problem about this."
 * 4)  "It is a useful graphic, why we have to delete it?"
 * 1)  "It is a useful graphic, why we have to delete it?"

Two more reverts, with similar reasoning, by possibly the same editor editing while logged out:
 * 1)  "Not sensible deletion of the graphic showing the points progression. Check the 2019 season, there is also such a graphic there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_World_Rally_Championship"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2020 World Rally Championship."

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

Comments: This user has been edit-warring against the removal of a graph from this article for over two weeks. Talk page discussion shows a preference to remove the graph. The user has refused to participate in the discussion, despite having been repeatedly requested to do so. They only revert on sight and are utterly unwilling to allow removal on the false pretense that content cannot be removed merely "because someone included it".Tvx1 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Lelekas here. They have been restoring the same graph over-and-over for more than two weeks. They have never posted on an article talk page so the outlook for cooperation appears dim. There is an actual discussion whether to include the graph at Talk:2020 World Rally Championship. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the user has responded by simply . Still no comment in the discussion on the talk page. What's the best way to proceed here?Tvx1 13:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. Long term warring to force inclusion of a graph that is opposed by many. User won't participate in the discussion about it on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Addicted4517 reported by User:103.101.171.186 (Result: Malformed report, Stale)
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:

Malformed EW case. The last edit from this IP was in September on the article Slave bible. Accused appears to be Addicted4517, though with no page being referred to it's not clear as to exactly which article they have allegedly edit warred on. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix up this report, guessing what the complaint was about. Besides being malformed, the report is stale. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Malformed report. Anyway, nobody has edited the article since 4 November so the report is stale for 3RR purposes. Consider using the article talk page to make your argument. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mariah200 reported by User:Blablubbs (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please, this has been settled. It's never a copyvio. You can initiate AFD if you desire"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 988678034 by Blablubbs (talk) Already settled before now. Not a copyvio of this https://www.imgmodels.com/pritikaswarup"
 * 3)  "tag clearly states "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. You can take it too AFD if you want"
 * 4)  "declining the speedy having addressed the issues"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated speedy tag blanking. FWIW, the page is still a copyright violation. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this notice. I am sorry for my actions. Trying to understand what's going on. It seems I got it all wrong. I was only trying to fix the issues. I also believe that "Speedy del" tag can be removed by any editor after dealing with the issues raised. I am so sorry. It wasn't intentional. I only tried to work on the page since the topic meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Pls forgive me. Mariah200 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time believing the intentionality part; you were explicitly warned to stop edit warring in an edit summary, on your talk page – a message you responded to (and hence acknowledged) immediately before you blanked the tag again. And with all your reverts, the page still contained close paraphrasing and direct copying from the source page, something which you failed to acknowledge. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I am so sorry oncemore. I didn't intend to engage in edit-warring. I thought I only removed the CSD tag having settled the copyvio issue on the page. Pls accept my apologies. I have learnt my lessons from this. Mariah200 (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since User:Mariah200 seems to be willing to follow our policies from now on. See User talk:Blablubbs regarding copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Yzd.exe reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

User violating WP:NPOV, WP:EW and WP:COMMONNAME by constantly attempting to force the term 'Arabian Gulf' onto the article, even though the term is not used in English and the majority of the world, and that's ignoring the fact that the article is even named Arab states of the Persian Gulf. No lack of WP:NPA either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 988518828 by MarioProtIV (talk) its not oversaturated"
 * 2)  "cant see any land on that image"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constantly reverts user’s edits to Eta’s image from a high quality image to a lower quality and oversaturated image. Does not listen to opinions and blames other people (as far as calling me “biased against” him on the discord. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional note: The same images are also the subject of edit warring at Saffir–Simpson scale, 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, and at List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging who tried to stop the dispute. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked 72 hours in May for ownership behavior and edit warring. They have been reported here three times altogether . It is high time for them to respond and explain how they will handle these things in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * mario is the one who started it. the image stood there for a while until he started changing it Fleur  De  Odile  22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FleurDeOdile, should that give us confidence that you won't continue to edit war in the future to put your preferred photograph into articles? I suggest a one-week block of your account due to the long-term pattern of warring. There is no reason to believe you will stop this ownership behavior. Your talk page is full of other people complaining about this, going back to Fall 2019. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Long term warring for more than a year. (Check out the complaint at User talk:FleurDeOdile from May 2019 and other posts below it). Fleur has also been warned for insulting other users in their edit summaries. FleurDeOdile's reply above gives no reason to believe that anything will be different in the future. A previous 72-hour block in May, given for similar reasons, seems to have left their behavior unchanged. The present block could be lifted if the user will propose how they might do things differently from now on. Fleur's reply above seems unresponsive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Edgekirov reported by User:Rwendland
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

'''User:Rwendland WP:DISENGAGE'd 30 September 2020‎ to 11 November 2020‎ while Dan Norris sought selection to stand in an election. User's earlier reverts:'''


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of request on User talk:Edgekirov to user to engage in discussion on article Talk page:

Comments: User:Edgekirov is a single-purpose account new editor who seems to believe a politician's Wikipedia article should not be changed while that politician is seeking selection / election. They have reverted all non-trivial changes, of which a 3rd party editor User:Jumpytoo stated "Content seems well cited and balanced" in this reinstate, since 2 September 2020‎, and has not engaged in any discussion on the article's Talk page despite invitations to do so in edit summaries and their Talk page. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Note: This is the first time I have had to engage in any formal dispute resolution, so please forgive me if I have chosen the wrong venue. As the user has not engaged in discussion guidance suggests neither WP:Third opinion nor WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is appropriate. As Edgekirov has more than 4 edits (all reverts) so is autoconfirmed, semi-protection would not be useful. So I have ended up here. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

User:SquidHomme reported by User:Admanny (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: Page is under 1RR discretionary sanction and consensus required. User has given bogus reasons for reverts such as "CNN/Fox is fake news" In addition, user has previously broke 1RR but this went unreported: I am merely enforcing consensus within the article to wait till all sources call a state before listing it on the page, per WP:CRP. Admanny (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Per WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT, I see nothing wrong here. This Admanny guy just cannot bear the loss of his dear candidate.— Squid Homme  (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough when you broke 1RR twice, one when you added votes to Trump and one when you added votes to Biden. I'm clearly not siding with anyone, lest to say you called CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as well. We follow a strict consensus where a handful of sources must call a state for it to appear in the infobox, and you are clearly not adhering to that. Also, would you really want to use IAR and FATRAT on a discretionary-sanctioned article? Admanny (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am improving the article by updating with what information I got my hands on, And when someone like you come to be an obstacle for the improvement of the article, I believe I must resort to WP:IAR as I am improving it, not vandalize it. Secondly, I wasn't aware of the consensus at the time nor the unusual 1RR instead of 3RR. Also, what's the problem with me calling CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as you appear to care more for these words when it's my personal opinion and shouldn't be of your concern as I'm not adding any of those phrase into the article. I say you should respect another's personal view.— Squid Homme  (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Secondly, there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. Lastly, your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. Admanny (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. I also doubt you missed that when you reverted my edits and | another user's edits more than once. your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. It might be biased for you (I can see from all the hatred you've directed toward me), but not for others.— Squid Homme  (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. Admanny (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. I believe you're bright enough to notice that my edits precedes this discussion, right?— Squid Homme  (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the discussion started 4 and a half hours before your edits, and yes, thank you, I am bright enough. Admanny (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And what? Is there any consensus I should follow? My edits precedes this discussion as there are no binding consensus produced as of yet regarding the inclusion of Georgia. Also, what's the point of a new discussion if there's a consensus in regard to how many "major networks" calling needed for a state to be included. And yeah, of course you're bright enough, boy. I agree :) — Squid Homme  (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of Georgia, or any state for that matter, is based on a consensus of major networks and news sites that are pre-determined before election night. That's the consensus. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Admanny (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure what's your point by suggesting me joining the discussion when there's already a consensus regarding it. Is there a change in the consensus? Is the recent discussions about Georgia changes the consensus? Talk about your wit here.— Squid Homme  (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned it pretty clearly already. Your edits are 1. Outside consensus, 2. Breaks 1RR and 3. are edit-warring, since you don't bother the talk page discussion. A handful of shenanigans if you ask me. Admanny (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits are 1. Outside consensus How many times should I say this for you to understand: I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. In regards of 1RR, don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. you don't bother the talk page discussion Tell me, what's the use for me to join the talk page discussion if there's already a consensus? Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? As far as I know, I reverted your edits, not actively editing it. I'm sure you're bright enough to tell the difference.— Squid Homme  (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. Good, that admits you missed the big banner on top of the editing page. Block worthy for that. don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. Allowed per WP:CRP, just making sure consensus is followed. Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. WP:BRD cycle. Admanny (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem too focused to get me blocked rather than improving the article. It figures. And it also appears that you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT completely that in order to improve the article, some rules cannot be followed due to it being a drawback that keeps the article from being updated as soon as possible. I'm not stating that I don't respect the consensus on this page, but it prevents the article on getting new, updated numbers. Not because of questionable sources, in fact the sources are legit and verified. And the consensus itself didn't specify and list which major media outlets qualified to be the caller. My question is this: Is Newsmax, or OANN qualify as a 'major media outlet?'Block worthy for that. Ah yes, you ARE the judge, jury and executioner. Why bother bring me into this discussion, judge? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. What word should I say, when the discussion is CLOSED because of the CONSENSUS has been reached? If there's an open discussion that will change the consensus once again, of course I'll take part in. So stop making false assumptions about me.— Squid Homme  (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to participate at, so it's quite obvious discussion is not closed. You decided it's closed by not participating and rather reverting. Strange... Admanny (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How come there's a CONSENSUS when the discussion is *obviously* NOT EVEN CLOSED??? Can you elaborate?—'''[[User:SquidHomme| Squid Homme ]]''' (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Prior consensus is decided. Discussion is underway to change that consensus. Please don't be dumb. Admanny (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't be dumb. Oh no, I don't need to be you. I was talking about the consensus before this one, not this one. Not even a straw poll or voting exists in this one, just comments over comments.— Squid Homme  (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then pitch in to that one? That discussion is way old now, I'm doing you a favor by redirecting you to the current one. The fact you're blatantly refusing to even participate is astounding. Admanny (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * blatantly refusing to even participate? Which part of this discussion shows that I "blatantly refusing?" As I said, stop making false assumptions about me.— Squid Homme  (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any experienced editor knows the WP:BRD cycle pretty well. You're not discussing even after I invited you multiple times to, so I'd like to repeat myself, blatantly refusing to participate. Admanny (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it funny, with your obsession to the word blatantly refusing to participate without even be able to point which of my word says that I'm blatantly refusing to participate in that discussion. Think about your wit here.— Squid Homme  (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it funny, that it took you so long to finally participate. What made you crack, if I can ask? Admanny (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I participated LONG before your false accusation of me beingblatantly refusing to participate. Making me question your knowledge of WP:CIV.— Squid Homme  (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering I see very little evidence of you participating in any discussion after going through the talk page's archives, I consider that highly unlikely. Admanny (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, but I don't need fans to stalk me right now.— Squid Homme  (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Prcc27 can add additional details regarding the current consensus if required. Additionally, user has pointlessly counter-filed a report against me, when clearly both filer and reported user would be investigated with this report anyway. Admanny (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinged to this discussion, so I'm not really sure if my comment here will mean much per WP:CANVASS.. Although, FWIW, I saw this discussion in my watchlist before I even noticed it was in my notifications. If anyone's curious about the consensus, please see the talk (especially the RFC at the top of the page). Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on SquidHomme's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User has also made attacks towards other editors even on RfC discussion here and on talk page here against several editors. Admanny (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this user Admanny links a completely irrelevant and unrelated discussion into a discussion about 1RR rule. As for the "attacks," that is an RfC. A place where a user can vote and express the reasoning and personal opinion about things in matter. For that I don't think this user understood.— Squid Homme  (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to point out that this user Admanny's remarks: Please don't be dumb. here in this section, is also a form of personal attack against me.— Squid Homme  (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Admanny reported by User:SquidHomme(Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Total: 12 reverts in 13 November!

Comments: In doing what he called "enforcing consensus within the article," this user has also breaking the rule itself by reverting it more than 2 times. Discretionary sanction applied to all editors who edit 2020 United States presidential election stated that an editor must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. This user User:Admanny clearly violates the rules knowingly by reverting the article three times within 24 hours period, using the phrase "enforcing consensus within the article," as an excuse to justify the reverts.— Squid Homme  (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I point out something here? WP:BRD's example states clearly that if someone makes a change and gets reverted, they should take it to the talk page. In every scenario, with a consensus that needs to be followed, I'm the "Editor 1". There's absolutely no reason why you need to accuse me of making up an excuse. It's pretty clear you're just trying to rat me out now. Admanny (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's all I can say.— Squid Homme  (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Also, I don't know what made this user exempt to the rules but this user has tendencies to "own" the article, which violates WP:OWN as evident in some (if not all) of this user's edits in the 2020 United States presidential election article. Which made me think that this user's argumentation regarding WP:BRD is just to justify their "ownership" of the article.— Squid Homme  (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Article has the following restrictions: 1RR and Consensus required. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Extraneous report of above. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on Admanny's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: It's true that this user Admanny wasn't formally alerted before, but they knowingly breaking the rule as evident here: saying: "1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page." Suggesting that because of a lot of editors break that on that page, and so they may be given permission, or allowed to do the same and gone unpunished because it "is pretty much rarely enforced." Isn't this a premeditated misconduct?— Squid Homme  (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:Atelerixia (Result: No action)
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: [diff]

'''Comments:All of my edits were well-thought-out and constructive. There was no reason for them to be constantly reverted.'''


 * Result: No action. The three reverts you list are over an eight-day period. They don't break 3RR. Anyway, an earlier report about Dependent territory was closed previously with a warning to you. There is still a live dispute about the definition of a dependent territory that needs to be resolved on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:93.138.76.165 reported by User:4thfile4thrank (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 989084283 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 989082748 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
 * 3)  "Stop insulting, great Serbian propagandist"
 * 4)  "gossip is not relevant to this page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
 * 3)   "/* Why are you removing content for no reason? */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the IP's talk page. I leave a message, and then he replies. After that, he blanks the article again without replying, and is speedily reverted. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Comments: You forgot to write an insult from a great serbian propagandist who constantly writes against the Croats [], i will erase those lies until you block me93.138.76.165 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved user comment: this user is asking to be blocked. Literally. Then you better block me: quote from their talk page. Also: this user has reverted four times on a single page in the past half an hour. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: they’re now reverting my rollbacks to their edits, so chalk up another two reverts. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2603:6080:6703:48A2:5418:71CB:D291:86CE reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "British Broadcasting Corporation"
 * 2)  "cchannelcb"
 * 3)  "cChannelcb"
 * 4)  "Bbc"
 * 5)  "uWorldwideuk"
 * 6)  "uk"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user thinks this show is made for BBC instead of PBS without a solid reason and refuses to discuss about it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – /64 range blocked two weeks by User:Kinu for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: No action needed)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:02, 16 November 2020
 * 2) 19:09, 16 November 2020
 * 3) 19:24, 16 November 2020
 * 4) 19:30, 16 November 2020

Editor was asked to self-revert their last edit, but responded by telling my 'Your level of arrogance knows no bounds'. Number  5  7  19:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They've now made a fifth revert. Number   5  7  20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I've engaged with this user on their talk page. I don't think they understand how Wikipedia works. I'm hoping the discussion leads somewhere productive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP is now making legal threats. Number   5  7  10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the user has backed away from the legal threats, but I'm trying to get a clear and full retraction. Since there have been no further reverts, and since the user is engaging at the talk page, I don't think administrative action is needed at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989047644
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989046966
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989027383

The Editor was asked to revert his changes or provide assistance to why the data cant be used. Instead made vague refrences

Comments:


 * I have nested this counter-report under the initial report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Howdoesitgo1 reported by User:George Ho (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Jim Rash): 07:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC), or probably 11:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) (Second Cold War): 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Jim Rash) (Second Cold War)
 * 1) 20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) 03:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) 06:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) 21:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 20:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

I reported the user at ANI weeks ago, but there wasn't an action. I invited him to go to WP:DRN, in which the user didn't participate. I even started the RfC discussion, in which the user hasn't yet participated. The reverts have been done for weeks. Seems that the user aggressively favors labelling the living person, especially by using his way of language toward others, including me. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GH has accused other people of not being likeable. He was told by an admin that one's own Insta is a reliable source. He's on a crusade to make this site into something he approves of. He is removing news without looking for secondary sources as seen in his Cold War edit. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Untrue. You were using this source, which reproduces or uses as a source the post-2013 Newsweek. Then you use another source, which is using RT, which is deprecated per WP:RSP. I didn't notice that you were using different sources to cite the same info. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how or why the user is interested in another article, but the user is still reinserting the post-2013 Newsweek (initially done by another user Tobby72) as a source, which is considered unreliable per WP:RSP. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From GH's own user page before he deleted it. This notes most of my wrongful deeds in the past. I'm doing my best to resist the temptations below right now. They are not rules but just self-notes. I might bend any of them only if it obstructs me from doing something beneficial to Wikipedia. However, bending it must be discreet.

Not go near pages about songs by Madonna until US cover arts are accepted. This oath shall not include verified free images, which shall possibly replace non-free images. It shall also not include songs sung by original artists. Not making any more protection requests on templates until ECP is allowed for protection on them. Close to opposition per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2, temporarily no ECP on high-risk templates Toning down ideas until all else fails. Staying out of politics of images Toning down non-free image requests and/or additions and/or changes for now until... I become more open-minded than now on people's opinions. Mainly applicable to: Images of regional editions/releases and offensive material, especially if free material might exist and an article subject is well understood without NFC. Images of recently deceased subjects. Might request undeletion for no less than three or six months after that particular subject's death. Toning down requests on title changes until I learn how to handle the heat. For now, refraining from changing or requesting change on: The casing of "Like/like" in titles indefinitely. Titles containing common punctuations, like periods and commas. You may engage in RM discussions at discretion. This includes titles like "X, wife of Y" and "X (wife of Y)" Note to self: You can vote and comment, but that's it! Rebuttals must be discretional at all costs! If edit warring happens, request protection. If the method is either rejected or ineffective, you may request such a change at discretion! Toning down my ideals and then becoming more realistic Focus less on editors and more on major content disputes, though often content disputes come with user conducts. Be careful!! Feel free to add infoboxes if necessary. If someone else removes your addition of the infobox, please discuss. If not necessary, don't add it! However, generally stay away from RfC case-by-case debates about infoboxes unless you are compelled to say something about them. Be careful starting one; you may face backlash. Also, if a Good or Featured Article lacks an infobox, please discuss first. Same goes for well-detailed articles. Generally, avoid canvassing. Instead, take Stanton McCandlish's and HighInBC's advices. Notify anybody and/or community at the minimum and without excess. Do not start a RM discussion on an article that has maintenance issues! If urged to do mass requests for protection, use caution. Otherwise, don't do it. Instead, inspect history logs and do individual requests but mostly at discretion. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Remember, one's own instagram page is considered a self-published source, and like youtube, is not allowed to be a reference on Wikipedia unless it can be backed with a secondary source.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:49.199.7.62 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reception of his writing */ These references are outdated, ludicrous, incidious and highly offensive. Wikipedia must be a postive place! No negative vibes!"
 * 2)  "/* Reception of his writing */ I GAVE reasons for why this was removed. Yet it was replaced back. Negatvie comments like this only seek to divide and slander Alain. He is a published author and by having negative comments, it could affect his sales."
 * 3)  "/* Reception of his writing */ It's not nice to have negative things said about his writing. His books are wonderful!"
 * 4)  "/* Reception of his writing */  I remove negative words. Alain seeks positive influence in life, not appropriate to have negative worlds here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:49.199.7.62.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is also apparently trolling at Talk:Michael Greger, apparently WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made genuine attempts to edit pages, and left reasons in the edit summary. Yet you blatently accuse me of NOT providing edit summaries, but I have for EACH of my edits. I am as entitled as anyone to make edits and suggewstions to IMPROVE wikipedia. You accuse me of not providing edits, but I have!
 * You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for: it is not for bolstering the subject's life, nor is it for editors to push their viewpoint onto others. If the reviews are coming from reputable sources and are significant, they can be considered for inclusion. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Harpal Makhwana reported by User:GeometryDashFan12 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Subdivisions */"
 * 2)  "/* Subdivisions */"
 * 3)  "/* Subdivisions */"
 * 4)  "/* Distribution */"
 * 5)  "/* Subdivisions */"
 * 1)  "/* Subdivisions */"
 * 2)  "/* Distribution */"
 * 3)  "/* Subdivisions */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to add unsourced content after told multiple times not to. Possible sock of 2 IPs who were also edit warring a gd fan (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours for 3RR violation and apparent logged-out editing. If you have an account, you should use it, especially for articles that may be subject to dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:103.48.104.130 reported by User:GeometryDashFan12 (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vankar&oldid=989714837

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vankar&oldid=989714837 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vankar&type=revision&diff=989722205&oldid=989712138 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding unreferenced material after and I after we removed his edits, and is a possible IP hopper (another IP has posted similar behavior) a gd fan (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: After looking at the report below, in light of WP:DUCK this is probably logged-out editing by User:Harpal Makhwana. I'm putting indefinite WP:Extended confirmed protection on both Vankar and Dhedh, per WP:ARBIPA. Indian caste articles are constantly troubled by promotional editing, especially from new users. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Twyceasnyce reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 989712111 by Tbhotch (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 989711313 by Tbhotch (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 989697367 by Robvanvee (talk) read Spin's review, it's in the article"
 * 4)  "As per Spin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2020 */"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Whoa, Nelly!."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is indeed a ban evader (behavioral evidence), but if this the faster way to get them blocked, why not. Already violated the 3RR at Whoa, Nelly and The Beginning (Black Eyed Peas album). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: has been blocked for long-term abuse. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Sro23 for long term abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:GPinkerton reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: User had already been blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 989482730 by Hardyplants (talk) It very much is in the reference. See the reference it says: "France has urged Middle Eastern countries to end calls for a boycott of its goods in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad" and "Meanwhile, small anti-French protests were held in Libya, Gaza and northern Syria, where Turkish-backed militias exert control." Read!"
 * 2)  "/* Syria */ What the source actually says ..."
 * 3)  "/* Syria */ Remove Turkish propaganda again. TRT is not reliable or worthy of note for statements of fact of anything that happens in Syria whatsoever."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 989474383 by Vice regent (talk) remove obvious biased Turkish state propaganda, see WP:RSP and the section dealing with Erdogan's own attack on freedom"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 989469684 by Assem Khidhr (talk) Very much is what the source says, so not try to edit-war your wording out against standing consensus. The article sates clearly "... in protest at President Emmanuel Macron's defence of the right to show cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." So the protests are exactly as stated: against the right to free speech."
 * 6)  "/* Syria */ Spelling and wording"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 989275467 by Assem Khidhr (talk) No need to add American language. Macron did not defend the caricature. He defended free speech, which itself defends the free press."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Protesting against freedom of speech in Syria, Libya, and Iraq? */ new section"

Comments:

I could see the editor in question was already blocked for 24h by the time I was preparing this. As of now, however, the last version of this page is the one made by the editor in question. Other editors who previously reverted their version, including my self, have seemingly desisted from feeding this edit war. Also note that they are an Extended-confirmed user, meaning that even a high level of page protection wouldn't stop them. Please initiate an appropriate action. Assem Khidhr (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:TIETJETETIET (Result: Filer indeffed)
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 edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

Comments:

Constant WP:TAGBOMB of article and adding puffery and un-sourced material. WP:OWN behavior on the article as well. TIETJETETIET (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Block, bag, and tag, most likely the same master as the already blocked 72.224.13.12, 198.48.167.69 , and JeanAndreMarc (the reverted users in the diffs above). The point appears to be to build up reverts and then make a report. I have already nominated the page for semi-protection. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filer indeffed Never a good idea to actually draw attention to yourself like that. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an article that is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War theme (1RR). The user reported here has a long history of edit-warring, and there is another case open against them in the noticeboard. This user has an extremist nationalistic POV agenda they are trying to push in many articles, as witnessed in the other complaint. Look at their revert history and edit warring behavior that warranted many warnings and complaints by several users on their Talk page and related articles Talk pages. This user is not here to contribute positively,, but to push their POV through wherever they can. Thank you for your attention. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kohli17 has added content, it has been reverted, and they have re-added it. AFAICS that is only one revert. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Veritaes Unam reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added reference to the Verse Account of Nabonidus"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 989432937 by Ichthyovenator (talk) I understand your claim, but I cited this with two reputable sources. Furthermore, the Verse Account of Nabonidus explicitly states Nabonidus passed the kingship to his son."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 989441886 by Tgeorgescu (talk) There is no original research, I cited two academic sources that support the hive claim. Furthermore, no Scriptures were cited, so time shouldn’t be wasted using such reasoning to remove sourced content."
 * 4)  "Noted the scholarly disagreement on the historicity of Belshazzar’s feast, and added citations for sources that accept its historicity."
 * 5)  "Emphasized the fact that Belshazzar was king of Babylon with his father as co-regent, added dates and two references."
 * 1)  "Emphasized the fact that Belshazzar was king of Babylon with his father as co-regent, added dates and two references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Belshazzar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Another edit war"
 * 2)   "/* Another edit war */ WP:CHOPSY"
 * 3)   "/* Another edit war */ typo"
 * 4)   "/* Another edit war */ comparison"
 * 5)   "/* Another edit war */ please desist"
 * 6)   "/* Another edit war */ typo"

Comments:

N.B.: Two or more consecutive reverts (i.e. consecutive edits) count as only one revert. To this I might add that their name, which means one truth in Latin, does not promise much good. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:172.58.43.70 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (diff added by )
 * 2)  "/* Other or combination messiah claimants */"
 * 3)  "/* Other or combination messiah claimants */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 989462148 by Sundayclose (talk)"

IP-hopped to (diffs added by )
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Yzd.exe reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

User resumed his edit warring right after his previous block for edit warring expired. Looking at his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and comments in his edit summaries (which he keeps repeating), I frankly doubt he is here to WP:BUILDWP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef. Their account was created on 11 November. The user continued to edit war right out of the gate after their prior block expired. Their first edit war (that led to the 15 November block) was that the Persian Gulf had to be called the Arabian Gulf. This user seems unlikely to follow our policies. They made no response to a final warning after this report was opened. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:François Robere (Result: Alerts)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Law */ Revert, restored last stable version of the text."
 * 2)  "Revert, pls do not edit war, and pls refrain from being disruptive — for new content, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"
 * 3)  "/* Law */ Revert, restored the text to the last stable version — no consensus for the changes on the talk page."
 * 4)  "/* Sports */ trim"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 988839744 by HQGG (talk) Revert, edit warring 3R rule, disruptive editing — you will be reported if you continue to edit war."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 988824497 by HQGG (talk) Revert, do not edit war."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 988824497 by HQGG (talk) Revert, do not edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 5RR, T-ban vio */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Stop edit warring over church nonsense */ new section"

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

Comments:

Discussion on abortion rights in Poland, after an attempted constitutional change by the Polish government. User has been previously c-banned from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed." Repeated PAs and refusal to self-revert. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "sports" diff was an oversight. I filed using Twinkle, and it automatically lists all edits from the last 25 or so hours. Regarding your diffs - only two of them are mine and they're spaced 20 hours apart (with discussion in between), so why you keep attacking me as "disruptive" is unclear. Note the second of the two collapses edits by four other editors, which could give a false impression about my edits. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment by E-960

This is a down right manipulation of reality. I think user François Robere thinks that if he files an admin complaint report first it will divert the attention from the fact that it's him and user HQGG who repeatably violated the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and despite an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, have re-inserted the disputed text, here:, , , , , and. Also, I would like to point out that other users have reverted those edits not just me, including Oliszydlowski and Snowded, also during the ongoing talk page discussion GizzyCatBella and NeonFor criticized François Robere and HQGG for their Tendentious editing, yet François Robere did not refrain form his disruptive editing, and now cries wolf, when I reverted the text back to the original long-standing version. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why is user François Robere, listing a completely unrelated edit (10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim") about Formula 1 and Robert Kubica, as proof of a content dispute against me in the Law section of the Poland article? Another point regarding the ban, it's scope relates to religion and secularism (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols, etc.), not law or general politics. This is just silly. This complaint should be dropped, as it's only purpose was to entrap someone and divert attention from François Robere own disruptive behavior. --E-960 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on HQCG's talk page over this. Its fairly clear that this account and François Robere are edit warring, and agressively so. I'd suggest that the behaviour of François Robere is reviewed given the matter has been raised here. I should make it clear that I supported the community ban on E-960 and it not 100% clear to me if this topic comes under that. However this is about proccess and the editors concerned have not raised an RfC or similar. They may be right but edit warring is not the way to resolve this -Snowded TALK 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * E-960 and HQGG are both edit warring. More concerning is the topic ban, which is broken outright (I participated in that discussion), and E-960's combatative behaviour here and from the looks of it on his talk page and article talk. E-960 is banned from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed, precisely due to this combatative behaviour, and examining the first diff in the sequence it discusses the legality of abortion in Poland which is within the remit of the ban, driving the point home is the first source cited titled Killing ‘Unborn Children’? The Catholic Church and Abortion Law in Poland Since 1989 from Social & Legal Studies which has Catholic Church in the title. Flaunting a community ban should have consequences.--Astral Leap (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The most worrisome here is the fact that the account just above has been registered in February and did not start being active until June, yet knows the system very well. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and returning accouts of people who most likely are not allowed to be here should not be allowed to fan the flames. Flaunting this in the community's face should have consequences. SPI, anyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:E-960 and User:HQGG have both broken 3RR, based on reverts that began on 15 November and continued into 16 November. Can anyone see a better alternative than blocking those two editors for 3RR violation? For example, general agreement to wait for an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston and Astral Leap, pls consider the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I don't think it's correct when you label everyone involved as "edit warring" even those who revert the new text and ask for a discussion. Wikipedia rules are clear, if you add new text and it gets reverted, you move to the talk page, not keep re-adding the text. This is precisely why these disputes explode, because some folks justify the editor who adds the new content and then aggressively keeps re-adding it, by saying something to the effect that everyone is edit warring - I disagree, restoring the original text and asking the editor who added the new content to discuss is not disruptive behavior, and in the past the Poland article was flooded with questionable additions. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Astral Leap, the point you raised only lends more support to my claim that François Robere is just trying to entrap someone with this admin complaint. See, the original edit on abortion did not make any reference to the Church, the only debate at that time was about the use of the word "restrictive" (as it implied value), the original text was more neutral in its wording, see here . This reference only appeared at the very last edit — the one added during the talk page discussion without consensus (and without being presented) and the same one where François Robere removed an entire paragraph on legal history in Poland, then immediately François Robere initiated this complain. Hmm... why would François Robere make such massive changes to the article and sneak a short reference to the Church then file a complaint for restoring the long-standing text. If the talk page discussion was in progress, editors should refrain form making disruptive edits to the text in question until consensus is reached, not make even more changes, and then cry foul. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * E-960, outlawing or restricting abortion in Poland is square in the middle of your topic ban. How can you not see this? Abortion legality is one of the central issues in secular or religious politics and is connected to the church. All of your edits there run contrary to the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per my understanding, as I was banned for a dispute on the Religion in the European Union on an issue related to the treatment Christians. I would highlight that the ban is related to topics of Christianity and secular politics (Secularism), which relates to (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols in government institutions, etc.). Issues, like abortion, LGBT or the death penalty are not necessarily connected, as there are many liberal Christian denominations, who support such issues (or ultra-conservatives in the case of the death penalty). So, it's difficult to argue that being for or against abortion means you are a Christian or you are not a Christian, these issues cut across various segments of the population. My initial issue was the use of the word "restrictive". I though it tilted the statement to one side, the original text just said what the law prescribes in Poland. As I mentioned before this is a high-level article so subsequently adding various points of view, would just expand the Law section and in the future create more disputes (and the issue can be described in detail in the topic specific articles like Abortion in Poland, which by the way, I'm not going to get involved in, as my focus for quite some time was the clean-up of the Poland article, everything form image selection, grammar, reference clean-up and trimming the text). --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I added link this to the Church and its dominant position in Polish politics. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any non-governmental organization what ever it is, can voice its views or ideology and get involved in politicking — separation of church and state is more related to something like Iran and the Islamic Republic, etc. In any case, the original issue was the wording ("restrictive"), and then the disruptive editing, not who holds which position and why. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that François Robere engaged in these type of crude tactics against other editors before, example here:. Perhaps, some kind of a sanction should be imposed on François Robere, because this keeps reoccurring, He periodically keeps filing frivolous complaints against other editors, all the while engaging in disruptive editing himself. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Though I haven't closed this edit warring report, I've alerted both User:E-960 and User:François Robere to the discretionary sanctions under the abortion decision. I'm still hoping that any of the participants will offer a proposal for resolving the dispute. For instance, there was a suggestion by User:Snowded at Talk:Poland for an RfC. Anybody want to open one? EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've engaged and agreed to compromise on both TP threads (Talk:Poland and Talk:Poland), and my edits reflect that. If you filter out the edit warring between E-960 and HQGG, and the former's aggressive comments, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. François Robere (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, no need in keeping this claim open, however I would like to raise one final point regarding François Robere behavior. I do hope that this is noticed by the Administrators, as it shows why some editors question his approach. In the past on the Poland talk page, François Robere advocated for the inclusion of a of a text which stated that Jesus Christ was the king of Poland, here:, the original heading of the thread was provocatively titled "Jesus Christ King of Poland?" (later changed to "Christianity in Poland"). The issue kicked off in a surprisingly similar manner, some anonymous IP and/or newly created user account started things off, then when the talk page discussion ensued, François Robere gets involved and makes his edits, here:, with the support of a newly created account (User:Volodya's song in that instance) who also makes similar edits, here: (going so far as to change the Poland infobox to include Christ as king of Poland). So, this is a similar patter as in this most recent discussion where user François Robere and user HQGG edited in tandem, and in that case the choice of topic advocated for inclusion in the Poland article was somewhat unusual, to say the least. --E-960 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I supported mentioning a declaration passed in the Polish parliament that designated Jesus "King of Poland", and a subsequent "coronation" attended by the President, Prime Minister, and other dignitaries. Those events were at once both notable, and very different from eg. a ruling by Poland's constitutional court that would ban 98% of abortions in a country where 99% of abortions are already done illegally.
 * That discussion also falls under your T-ban from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed".
 * I engaged you respectfully and on-topic throughout this discussion, and even asked that you self-revert before filing this, yet you continue attacking me here, on your TP and on Talk:Poland, while refusing to compromise on content that's heavily backed by sources. This is not productive. François Robere (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Note to the reviewing administrators : This just has been filed (by account registered in February, did not start being active until June - well understanding the system) - - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The AL account is just a more advanced version of HQGG, yet another single purpose account with very few edits. All of this reminds me a lot of the accounts reviewed in Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. A lot of accounts reviewed there are from the same time period and show similar on and off pattern - make few edits, go silent for few months, go back. An effort to mature the account for auto-confirmation? Someone is not playing fair here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No block, since E-960 has agreed to 'take a step back'. I have alerted two editors to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB. The abortion decision should apply to addition, removal or changing of anything on the topic of abortion though not to the Poland article as a whole. If E-960 shows that they are not capable of editing neutrally on the topic of abortion, they could be banned from the topic. Though there is some progress at Talk:Poland there is so far no actual RfC on the talk page. If there were, we might have more confidence in User:François Robere's statement above that EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * O ye of little faith... François Robere (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Rubones reported by User:Vossanova (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Console GPUs */"
 * 2)  "/* Console GPUs */"
 * 3)  "/* Console GPUs */"
 * 4)  "/* Console GPUs */Informações corretas"
 * 1)  "/* Console GPUs */"
 * 2)  "/* Console GPUs */Informações corretas"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of AMD graphics processing units."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * This user is now making the same reverts under the IP User:2804:431:CFF6:920:2575:4293:6B57:76A3 --Vossanova o&lt; 12:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * SPA making the repeated addition of large a OR/SYNTH section to Opus Dei, repeatedly rejected in talk page discussions yet the user persists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:83.102.203.65 reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The IP has also added the same incorrect information at Club Future Nostalgia, as seen here (including reverting the removal of their non-factual edits), engaged in edit war at Physical (Dua Lipa song) (as seen here: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4).

Looking at the edit topics and when the IP became active, I now strongly suspect that this is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of the recently banned editor who was adding identical content to the same articles prior to their block.

Pinging other involved editors who have reverted the IP and Zhmailik previously ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also been involved with Zhmalik a couple times. Just to note: this IP is rudely spamming mine and King GA's talk pages with "warnings" such as . This IP has broken the 3RR more times than needed. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: this IP now thinks it’s ok to impersonate and has copy and pasted their signature to the IP talk comments. I don’t know if this will require extra penalty, and I can’t find the right warning template for it. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is another page, Physical (Dua Lipa song), that this IP has broken the 3RR in. Eight reverts in an hour. Look at the page history. Please also note that this user is now spamming my talk page with "warnings". D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Said IP has now been blocked due to sockpuppet investigation here. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 week for sockpuppetry. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:2600:1007:B0A6:F797:942F:E86:5506:C81B (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I do not know how to correctly report, but user Snooganssnoogans is blatantly edit warring the article of John James, has ignored request for a consensus on the talk page, and has taunted me by telling me to use my “real account.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B0A6:F797:942F:E86:5506:C81B (talk)
 * Non admin comment: this is false. The article in question has not been edited in two months. Perhaps they meant to link to another page. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no violation here. Snoogans did not go over 3RR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He has made over 3 reverts on the same page within a 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B008:E331:30BF:9996:98BA:62C (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true; Snoogans only reverted three times in a 24 hour period as seen on the page's history. IP, kindly notify Snooganssnoogans on their talk page that they have been reported. You may use {{subst:an3 notice}} to do so. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 )  22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs of the reverts as well.


 * No violation from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Sparkle1 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to the ongoing RfC

Comments:

There is currently an RfC ongoing o the talk page of the Nicole Maines article surrounding her birth name. The Rfc must be allowed to conclude no matter how long it takes. The consensus reached must be respected. A single user cannot impose their preferred version on the article when there is an RfC ongoing which they have actively been taking part in. It matters not how strongly the party feels regarding their position. The RfC process must be respected. Multiple users with multiple differing viewpoints have participated and one user cannot simply circumvent the discussion by engaging in the imposition of their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting my agreement with Newimpartial's reply below. MOS:DEADNAME is clear that the content should be removed and that this is a BLP issue. No prior RFC or clear consensus existed to enforce keeping material that violates MOS and BLP. Rab V (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Newinpartial

Please note the edit rationales I provided in the diffs linked above by Sparkle1. The inclusion of the deadname in question is sourced to an interview, which does not satisfy the sourcing requirements set out in WP:BLP. This is true regardless of the broader policy discussion ongoing on the article Talk page. All three of the diffs Sparkle1 provided above fall into the provisions for removing contentious amd poorly sourced material from a BLP, which is excluded from WP:3RR.

Also note that Sparkle1 has been engaged in an edit war on the Nicole Maines page, including the following reverts: As the last three of those consisted in the re-insertion of contentious material into a BLP and are therefore both Edit Warring and WP:BLP violations, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG sanction may be merited, particularly since their Edit Warring and WP:IDHT behaviour on the page in question is currently ongoing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * It is not your place to simply impose your preferred version of the article when an RfC on the very issue is ongoing. No matter how much you claim BLP applies in your favour the RfC is discussing if it and MOS:DEADNAME actually apply to support your preferred version or another version. It cannot be you choose to impose your preferred version when your rationale is expressly disputed and is part of the RfC. It was blatant what you were attempting. You were being disruptive and you were trying to force your preferred version of the article. That cannot be allowed and goes against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia no to be a battleground. You chose with your actions to edit war and you and you alone did that. I and another user restored the pre-RfC version. You may dislike that version but it doesn't mean you get to impose your preferred version on the article. The RfC must be respected and allowed to complete. Otherwise going round it makes the RfC and any discussion impossible to have when it is going to be vetoed by yourself by imposing your preferred version.


 * I would also like to point out that restoring to a pre-Rfc version when a discussion is ongoing and discussion to reach that consensusversion after a discussion reached that consensus is not edit warring. Failing to engage in discussion and respect and RfC is disruptive, POV pushing and edit warring. You have e only engaged in the behaviour you have to try and impose your preferred version of the article, while discussion is ongoing. That is wrong and Wikipedia must stand against that kind of behaviour.


 * Newimpartial seems to be forgetting that they are not the only editor on the page and that they cannot simply impose their preferred version on the article. They may dislike the previous consensus, but there is no question or contention that is was there, the article was stable and had been discussed. To also ignore and attempt to circumvent an ongoing RfC shows contempt for discussion with others. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * On an aside, the diffs provided by Newimpartial regarding myself should be disregarded as they are trying to paint a picture of maliciousness on my part, which does not exist. The first diff provided was on 18 November and related to a user trying to say that on ongoing RfC had reached a consensus not to proceed with a specific option. That was a good-faith edit and was reverted. The user who made that good-faith edit did not then go on a re-revert etc. The next three are reverting Newimpartial's blatant attempts to impose their preferred version on the article on 20 November in circumvention of the ongoing Rfc, in what I consider to be, edits in bad faith. Rfc's must be respected and allowed to continue and conclude. Editors cannot impose their preferred outcome or version while an Rfc has not made any firm conclusions and discussion is still actively ongoing. That is classic disruptive bad faith behaviour. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Newimpartial is also intentionally misrepresenting the sources, there have been multiple secondary sources and primary sources provided regarding the birth name of Nicole Maines. It is important not to take at face value the half-truths being posted here by Newimpartial in an attempt to discredit sources they simply dislike. Newimpartial is not engaging in the discussion any more they are being disruptive by trying to wikilawyer their way to scaring other users to accept their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear: I don't have a "preferred version" - all I was doing was undoing three edits where an editor had re-inserted contentious material without appropriate sourcing, as the edit summaries attached to my diffs (which Sparkle1 provided in this filing) make perfectly clear.
 * What Sparkle1 is contributing at great length sounds like WP:OWN behaviour and a defense of (alleged) LOCALCONSENSUS against site-wide policy, but I'll leave it to admins to weigh in on that. Nobody needs to take my unsubstantiated word for anything - just look for yourselves.
 * As to intentionally misrepresenting the sources I never did that, and it rather sounds like a personal attack. The fact is that the version that Sparkle1 reverted three times to retain includes the DEADNAME in the infobox while sourcing it to an interview, which is not a RS for a contentious fact according to WP:BLP policy.Newimpartial (talk) 00:36 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Sparkle1 and User:Newimpartial are both warned for edit warring. WP:DEADNAME is a link to a section of the WP:MOS, i.e. it is a style guideline. There does not seem to be any actual controversy as to the person's true birth name. The name is cited to an interview with the subject, Nicole Maines, which appeared on ABC television. So there is no issue with quality of sourcing. In other words WP:3RRNO does not exempt from 3RR any additions or removals of the person's birth name from the article. You should both wait for consensus on talk before reverting again. Consider getting the RfC closed by an admin for a dispute which is as intense as this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989284297
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989283449
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989271085
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989269711

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yousef_Raz&oldid=989286179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Krebs&oldid=989276715 Yousef Raz (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&oldid=989287149

Comments:

Article Chris Krebs Chris Krebs was the first and currently the only Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is well cite by multiple sources including the Washington Post. Users continue to change the article to reflect his previous position in a now defunct federal agency. I have made attempts to discuss this with the initial user that was altering the article. He has not responded to my discussion attempts. Another user has now changed it back to the incorrect information. How do I get it back to reflect correctly without violating the rules? Do I wait for a fourth user to change it back? This seems pretty simple and straight forward.05:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the major formatting issues with this request and informed Yousef Raz that the report is missing some fairly crucial pieces: User talk:GorillaWarfare. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Stale. This is a complaint about User:Therequiembellishere. Their last edit at Chris Krebs was at 02:44 on 18 November, more than 72 hours ago. Since the start of 18 November there have been 100 edits by various people, so whatever this dispute was, seems to be getting merged in to the flood of new edits. If there is still a disagreement about use of the phrase 'contradicting Trump', can somebody open an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe reported by User:ImTheIP (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Buidhe violated the one-revert rule on the article in question. They were informed of their infraction by yours truly here and asked to self-revert. User Zero0000 chimed in and also asked them to revert. Buidhe is ignoring the messages left on their talk page since they have been editing Wikipedia afterwards. I think my request to self-revert was very polite and their (non-)response is very rude.

The first edit deleted an article section added in 2013. While I am confident that it satisfies the definition of a revert, I've often thought that there should be a guideline on how to treat changes to very old text. Should there be a time-limit built into the definition of "revert"? Zerotalk 11:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If removing content in an article is considered a revert, virtually any edit to a 1RR article that alters existing text could be considered a partial revert and such articles would be very difficult to edit. If you're going to sanction me for this, please start with this series of edits to the 1RR restricted Armenian Genocide article, virtually all of which are reverts by this strange definition. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The vagueness of the phrasing of core parts of WP:EDITWAR has been "weaponized" in the past to get editors sanctioned. While technically it is true that any removal is "undoing of another editor's action" (because someone had to add it), it's also true that "reversal" is generally understood to be of some recent change. Any other reading would make even basic CE sanctionable - an untenable policy for a project like this. Shrike was right to ask which edits were reverted, and neither ImTheIP nor Zero provided diffs. This request should be dismissed with a friendly warning to all involved to cooperate better. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If Buide's behavior is acceptable then it appears that any user can cite WP:OR and delete any section of any article and then stonewall when challenged about it. Unless the user challenging the edit gets someone to help them reverting, the original user will always "win" due to their one "extra revert". The relevant policy is discussed here: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". Aiui, the policy reads "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. " Buidhe violated the underlined part. Im The IP  (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "original author" rule was withdrawn by Arbcom. Please see WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles for a summary of the current rules. Zerotalk 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe violated the underlined part But that's not what you warned him against - you warned him against 1RR, which he understandably rejected (and an editor is entitled to a warning before being brought here). François Robere (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To what version the first revert was reverting? The thing is that first revert was edit and not revert. Removal of old material was never enforced or considered a revert especially in I/P area --22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the article's history. Buidhe's edit reverted in full the following edit:  Im The IP  (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just 2013? Are you sure they didn't revert anything from earlier? :-P François Robere (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the misinformation above, there is no rule that a revert must recover an earlier version of the article. The definitions at WP:Edit warring simply do not have this; they say "in whole or in part" three times. It is also easy to see: editorA adds textA, editorB adds textB, editorC removes textA; nobody can deny that editorC did a revert even though the full text afterwards does not match any previous version. Zerotalk 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You maybe right but I was chastised by admins when I asked to enforce it. We need some consistency in enforcing the polices Shrike (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Consistency? On AN? François Robere (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. When enforcing either 3RR or 1RR, admins will usually not take the first edit as a revert unless it undoes a recent change. In the case of the first diff given above, User:Buidhe was undoing something from seven years earlier, according to patient analysis by the filer, User:ImTheIP. There seems to be admin discretion on whether to call this a revert. I am choosing not to call it that. So there is no 1RR violation. If Buidhe really thinks the sources are so bad, I would hope to see him on the talk page helping to select better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed with this decision and I stand by my original assessment that Buidhe broke both the letter and the spirit of the law. If that is not correct, I'll have to adapt to anticipate that editors will behave as poorly as Buidhe did and adjust my own behavior to match. I hope the reason for this decision isn't the fact that Buidhe has a longer tenure on Wikipedia than me. Im The IP  (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:3Kingdoms reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=987910068&oldid=987750106
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=988501350&oldid=988443185
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=988715111&oldid=988561494
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989217257&oldid=989130152
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989638752&oldid=989482390
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989973655&oldid=989961545
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989986050&oldid=989979025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A3Kingdoms&type=revision&diff=989979684&oldid=988906787

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

Comments:

3Kingdoms appears to be conducting a slow edit war, attempting to remove well-sourced information from Rob Schenck every day or two. In several of their edits they have attempted to make claims that "The American Conservative", which is listed as only a usable source " for attributed opinions" on Reliable sources/Perennial sources, pre-empts the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Reuters U.S. Legal News articles cited because "TAC has no statement in favor or not, so I[sic] really doesn't matter."(talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No violation of 3RR from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I asserted a violation of 3RR, but rather a slow edit war, which is still edit warring according to policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no issue. I oppose having it in the heading, because the claim is disputed. It should be included on his page, but not the heading because this is not what Schenck is known for as opposed to the doc. I have informed the person who takes issue to post on the talk page, which is what should be done. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the defense PackMecEng. This report is really only up become this account has been arguing with me on another page. So said person got mad looked through my edits and decided to do this to get me in trouble. It's unfortunate, but that's how things are. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This report was made because I noticed you are edit warring. No other reason. I am not reverting you further but I am noting your latest edit-war diff above. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not edit warring, but okay. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * for 3RR violation at Rob Schenck (see below report). – bradv  🍁  05:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:3Kingdoms reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 989994541 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) I have on talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 989989590 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please create talk section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 989979025 by IHateAccounts (talk) Take to talk page. This is not what he is known for."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 989961545 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please create a section on the talk page if you wish to keep this up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation */"

Comments:

Clear and unambiguous 3RR violation here, after already being repeatedly warned and even discussed above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Really No. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You made four reverts in the span of three hours and 18 minutes. Yes Really Yes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * of your 11 edits on this page in question, 9 were reverts. All in the past couple weeks. I am blocking you from Rob Schenck for 3 days. I'm going to look further into your editing given your... beat me to it.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah I just looked into their history a bit more. I'm not going to change the block now, but the next one will definitely be longer. – bradv  🍁  06:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  05:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Secobi reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked 24 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:

After adding a warning to the user's talk page, they expressed an unwillingness to engage on talk, instead prefering to use edit summaries. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:DaveBarretts-Son reported by User:Rdp060707 (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . I have partially blocked from the David L. Barrett article indefinitely. DaveBarretts-Son is encouraged to submit proposals for changes to the article on the talk page (Talk:David L. Barrett), ensuring that the proposals are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —  Newslinger   talk   06:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Rana of Bharat reported by User:Heba Aisha (Result: Already blocked)
Page: talk 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:

Violation of topic ban by continuously discussing about topics for which ban is imposed. Addressing other user by fool and other derogatory words.see his recent edits Heba Aisha (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Brian Bordon reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff Aug 20, 2020
 * 2) Diff Sept 30, 2020
 * 3) Diff Oct 21, 2020
 * 4) Diff Nov 20, 2020 #1
 * 5) Diff Nov 20, 2020 #2

And likely these previous edits as an IP:


 * 1) Diff May 29, 2020 (1st edit)
 * 2) Diff June 28, 2020
 * 3) Diff July 10, 2020
 * 4) Diff Aug 19, 2020


 * Diff of 1st warning: Diff
 * Diff of 2nd warning: Diff
 * Diff of 3rd warning: Diff
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not really applicable, though this previous discussion on the Talk page is directly applicable.

Comments:

This report is not a technical "WP:3RR" report, but is instead of a report of a true "slow-motion edit war". Pretty much like clockwork, this editor shows up about once a month to make an edit they have already been repeatedly reverted on. If you count their pre-account editing as an IP, this goes back 6 months. Editor makes no attempt to discuss, or justify their edit. Just persistent disruptively restoring it. Also, based on their edit history, this pretty much seems to be an WP:SPA. I'm pretty much at my wits' end here. Unfortunately, a short-term block is unlikely to be fruitful, as they seem to make this edit about once a month. I'm inclined to ask for an WP:INDEF based on WP:NOTHERE, but I'm willing to listen to anything whatever Admin sees this suggests. Thanks --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Long term edit warring about mentions of Stephanie Bennett (actress). This happens in articles such as: Descendants (2015 film), Descendants (franchise) and Snow White (Disney character). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:5.43.72.55 reported by User:Twassman (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 990140931 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "you cause clutting article history for no reason"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 990140116 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 990140290 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mustafa Nadarević."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mustafa Nadarević."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also reverted warnings on talk page. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks for edit warring by User:Cyphoidbomb. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:JamalGold reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

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

Comments:

New created account makingunsourced and POV edits on 2020 Nagorno Karabakh page. Posible Sockpuppet of User:GoldyMcDonald or User:SalahGood same POV push and similar name.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow they’ve reverted 15 times and counting in the past 24 hours. That is definite edit warring. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He reverted you twice.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 24 hours-block not enought, he still disrupts other users edits, here one of Ekograff and here 5RR. Also there is a current Sock Puppet investigation taking place on him.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)