Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:KermitO reported by User:Hipal (Result: No action)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KermitO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:06, 20 June 2020
2. 18:59, 22 June 2020
3. 19:11, 22 June 2020
4. 21:50, 22 June 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:34, 22 June 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

Comments:

Edit-warring in a WP:BLP over trivia on the WP:FRINGE topic of morphic resonance, shortly after the article was protected because of disruptive editing partly about morphic resonance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. The self-importance of Wikipedia editors is astonishing. Yet at the same time, they take for granted their role in privileging certain ways of constructing knowledge. It only becomes an "edit war", when someone disputes their willy-nilly reversion of someone else's edit. Because 'they' say something is trivial, or "non-notable", it must be. It's absurd. In every instance, I justified my edit, and it was reverted, anyway. So, I suppose, I should just accept the "superior judgment" of the wikilords? I'm cool. The difference between me and you dweebs? I don't actually care that much. If it gives you a hard-on to "win" on the internet in an argument over the significance of an edit, you can have it. Congrats. --KermitO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Admins handling this case should be aware of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the Sheldrake article. A cabal of heavily sceptic editors, numbering five or six and including the editor who reported the case here, have basically locked down the article. It's a kind of extreme WP:OWN issue. No one can edit that article without their permission and anyone who tries to do so is reverted on site. Have a look at the current Talk page and the most recent archive to get a flavour of the problem we have here. We also have an involved admin who's protected the article, and an ongoing case at the BLP Noticeboard. KermitO is the latest editor, acting in good faith, to fall foul of the cabal. I would urge you to address the underlying problem here, rather than sanctioning an editor who was merely trying to add content. Arcturus (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:KermitO is risking a block for edit warring and personal attacks. In addition, there is a problem with editors new to the topic area getting inspired to 'fix' Sheldrake's article, which has a long history here of major struggles. Under WP:ARBPS an administrator could apply WP:ECP as a discretionary sanction. This would increase the chance that people arriving and wanting to fix the article might be familiar with our editing standards. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well Sheldrake's article certainly does need fixing. Current "editing" standards there leave a great deal to be desired. In essence, the article has been hijacked by fanatics. Incidentally, Kermit wasn't trying to "fix" the article at all. He simply wanted to add a piece of sourced popular culture material, but the Cabal wouldn't allow it. Arcturus (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. Getting support from others in a talk page discussion is the best way to get significant changes made in this article. The comments about 'wikilords' are verging on WP:Tendentious editing so I hope they won't continue. If you review the 21 talk archives you'll see that the current version of the article reflects wider opinion than just a 'cabal of heavily sceptic editors'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:113.197.13.138 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

also in

Page

Conversion to Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Andaman and Nicobar Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

113.197.13.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi:

1. 06:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC) "But the Landmark article also states 2012. This makes no sense."
2. 06:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC) "No. The article says 2012 too. So dont change it to 2013."

• Conversion to Judaism:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See previous case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:113.197.13.138 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)

IP-user engages in discussion after block in Talk:Java but continues to edit war in List of tallest buildings in Abu Dhabi, Conversion to Judaism, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

– Austronesier (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The user is constantly making the same edit to the Conversion to Judaism article, despite having been reverted by at least three different users and being asked to raise the matter on the talk page more than once. Île flottante (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 10 days. Previously blocked 31 hours. This user's edits are getting reverted in many different places and they are even triggering the edit filter. It is hard to WP:AGF given their recent behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 reported by User:JShark (Result: Blocked)

Page: Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collebud88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]
7. [13]
8. [14]
9. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

I have tried to invite the user to specify the reason for their edits on the talk page and thus avoid an edit war. Thus all the editors can reach a consensus on the talk page. --JShark (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The user had already been blocked by an edit war in the article about Colombia. Now that same user wants to add the same controversial information again.

1. [18]
2. [19]

--JShark (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh, not this again. I was involved with Collebud88 last year: they would insert superlative statements about Colombia, and when these were removed as misleading or not quite supported by the sources they've cited, they would simply revert (and revert, and revert..) without ever bothering to participate in the ensuing discussions (like this one). As far as I can see from a quick glimpse, the exact same things appear to be happening again: addition of statements showing how great the country is (including ones, like the one about it being a regional power, that were debunked in the previous discussion), stubborn edit-warring when reverted, and no participation in the talk page discussion. Collebud88, if you continue to refuse to engage in talk page discussions and simply revert others, the only thing you can reasonably expect to achieve is getting yourself blocked. – Uanfala (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

1. [20]
2. [21] -> That user does not stop reversing the editions of other users. And the user never wants to communicate with other editors on the talk pages. --JShark (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Not their first block. This user has never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Socks 01 reported by User:Addicted4517 (Result: )

Page: New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Socks 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]
7. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

This content dispute does go back further, but this user is simply refusing to acknowledge that there is no reliable proof that the promotion that is the subject of the issue is closed. The links the user has provided do not establish this and the user insists on making connections that are in violation of original research. There is a suspicion of a COI which he has denied but some underlying knowledge appears to be at play here. When I warned him on his talk page he responded with the latest revert. I have reverted it back and promptly made this report. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Theboycaoimhs reported by User:Bastun (Result: Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been blocked indefinitely at SPI)

Page

Fingal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Theboycaoimhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Incorrect information changed to reflect that Fingal is not a designated county in Ireland. It is an administrative region"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) to 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Fixed incorrect content. Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland and the references used to support this claim refer to the break up of Dublin County Council into three distinct regions"
   2. 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland. Incorrect information"
3. 12:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Changed incorrect content. Fingal is not a county in the Republic of Ireland. This is false information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

One Two

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Fingal is not a county */ r"

Comments:

New user, has only edited this page. Ignored edit summary warnings from Spleodrach, talk page warnings from me. A case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the content they keep reverting is well referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been Blocked indefinitely at SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallachia Wallonia reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: )

Page

Talk:Black Lives Matter (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wallachia Wallonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964304036 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) This is not vandalism, please read WP:3RRBLP"
2. 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964303462 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) This user is accusing people of crimes they did not commit, would you accept this on "Pizzagate" or "9/11" talk pages?"
3. 18:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964158908 by Ian.thomson (talk) You can't indict people for crimes that the official reports say they didn't commit, and state it as a matter of fact as you did. Infowars is that way."
4. 21:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020 */ removed libel per WP:BLP. Per all the sources in that article and the legal process, nobody "lynched" her, it was suicide. Feelings are not facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (blp) (Mechanized Unit)"
2. 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"
3. 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"
4. 18:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Black Lives Matter. (Mechanized Unit)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Bit of a reach to justify CRYBLP over refactoring another editor's talk page comment, three times.'Nuff said about comparing editors to Inforwarrior types. ——Serial ^# 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

So it's now allowed to indict people for crimes they were proven not to commit? I'm sure that's a reasonable reason to refactor a talk page comment that's not even on topic. Apparently, you can state as a matter of fact that a proven suicide was a murder by the police, because "some people" dispute it, and one source from the highly partisan World Socialist Web Site - that's only being used to cite two trivial things on the article - says so? Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thomson explained his reasoning, and the phrase is insufficiently gregarious to justify an exemption from edit-warring. Your next move should have been to discuss it with him on his talk page, or, in the extreme, a noticeboard. Perhaps you are a little over invested in the subject, and the discussion: emotive topics such as this one should have their talk pages—subject to the usual exceptions—policed with a light, not heavy, hand in order to avoid this kind of situation. ——Serial ^# 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have invited the reported user to self-revert. I'm waiting to see their response. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be the sensible result, and I'd happily withdraw this report in that event. ——Serial ^# 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User: CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: both blocked for 2 weeks for feuding)

Page: Tibet Autonomous Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Comments:
Ping @Siddsg: and @Robynthehode: as both were involved in the issue before I was, Siddsg did the original two reverts and Robynthehode warned CaradhrasAiguo [39] and said that they would have reverted if they’d seen it before Siddsg did. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a badly malformed report, as the last two are not reverts as the fourth link obscures the fact I had simply swapped sources from Human rights in Tibet and in the fifth link, I had retained all the sources from the revision prior; the diff between my last two edits makes the source retention abundantly clear. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes most of the sources were retained but you still deleted the section of text your first edit deleted... Its clearly a continuation of the edit war. There is no excuse for five reverts in a row without a peep on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked both CaradhrasAiguo and Horse Eye Jack for 2 weeks for feuding. This edit war is just a continuation of that feud. Siddag did revert twice, and should be careful and consider BRD, but their behavior at this page is not nearly as serious a concern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: FobTown will abide by the RfC)

Page

COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964317750 by MarkH21 (talk) no further comments for days, no conclusive agreement was reached"
2. 20:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964067385 by Mx. Granger (talk) we had no agreement"
3. 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961879523 by MarkH21 (talk) we did not reach a consensus yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is reverting multiple editors who are enacting the RfC that was clearly closed by JzG as:

There is clear consensus for 2a, but with only relatively few editors involved and some reservations expressed, so this should not be interpreted as forestalling further discussion to refine the text.
— User:JzG

Clear-as-day WP:IDHT edit warring to remove the entire text (option 4 in the RfC) from an editor who was previously blocked for edit warring on this very article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC was closed without an agreed consensus from either parties, there was no further comment since June 11, 2020. [40] Furthermore, Mx. Granger wasn't involved in the later discussion for a while and suddenly pops up to revert it unilaterally? FobTown (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this is really a WP:CIR issue from FobTown (whose username is a pejorative term by the way). The closing statement of There is clear consensus for 2a does not somehow mean closed without an agreed consensus, and not all parties have to agree for there to be a consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FobTown, no it was not. The consensus is unambiguous for 2a.You can start a new discussion to further refine the text, but 2a is the version that has consensus. Guy (help!) 09:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

[41] Shows that MarkH₂₁'s attempts to implement the disputed passage was rejected twice on June 11, 2020 by myself and then User:Horse Eye Jack. Thus my June 11, 2020 revert does not count towards the 3RR. FobTown (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that User:FobTown should be blocked for editing against the result of the WP:RFC. Perhaps they will respond and make some promise about their future editing that would make a block unnecessary. Since the community has authorized sanctions for COVID, they probably don't want admins to take this lightly. FobTown's remarks above suggest a lack of understanding of the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand where I was the wrong, this will not happen again, and I'll agree to abide by WP:RFC from now on. FobTown (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:FobTown has agreed to abide by the WP:RFC in future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:602:9d00:3970:3d00:cceb:67af:88c7 reported by User:El_C (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Stereotypes of white Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:602:9d00:3970:3d00:cceb:67af:88c7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

22:40, 24 June 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 24 June 2020
2. 23:12, 24 June 2020
3. 06:23, 25 June 2020
4. 06:31, 25 June 2020

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:27, 25 June 2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:31, 25 June 2020 * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Lourdes 14:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:SalahGood (Result: EC protection)

Page: Operation Spring Shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

I'd also like to put forward several other incidents with the user. 1) Good faith warning at my talk page despite no bad faith editing.[49] 2) False vandalism accusation at edit summary despite my edit being WP:NOTVANDALISM[50]. 3) Shouting at me in edit summary.[51] 4) Warning me of edit warring at my talk page after he violates 3RR.[52] 5) Bad faith response and threats following edit war notice.[53] SalahGood (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SalahGood with a a account of 72 hours of created, is reverting and disruptive editing Turkish related articles, the same way User:Maistara (a proven Sock of User:Gala1900 did). There is a investigation of Sockpuppetry in this case.

Both editors dit the same articles and have the same POV pushing.

During the investigation me and another editors, were warned that User:SalahGood was likely a Gala1900 Sockpuppet here.

Most conveniently a SPI investigation was caried out and 3 accounts were blocked by a admin at:

• Blackout5019 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet that reverted my edits.
• Maistara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SockPuppet of Gal17928 - Blocked at 06:53, 22 June 2020
• Sacrmenbb47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - A sleeper account of Maistara with no edits, (to revert later.)

who were confirmed to each other, and to:

• Gal17928 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SP
• Ahhlanker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SP

SalahGood account was created at 09:38, 22 June 2020 and all his/her edits were to restore Maistara edits.

See here: Maistara edits (Blocked SP) - SalaGood edits.

Even more, the same time User:Maistara complained my edits, User:SalahGood was reverted all my edits. Maistara complains about my edits and call me False SalahGood revert my edits. 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4 revert Both use the same worlds and criteria.

The SPI Check ended before SalahGood account was created, the investigation was not filed yet, and i requested to include SalahGood, because he was reverting back all Maistara edits after he was blocked.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Operation Spring Shield placed under extended confirmed protection for one month due to socking concerns. This will make it harder for newly-created socks to edit the page. Note that the filer of this report, User:SalahGood, who has 46 edits, is named in a current SPI whch is waiting for evaluation. The participants here are surely aware the page is under 1RR and that blocks can be given for that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW reported by User:SmartyPants22 (Result: )

Page: List of current ships of the United States Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UBQITOSW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said on talk page of List of current ships of the United States Navy that I just hope SmartyPants22 can move all sections to the new layout in one edit prior to change this list, rather than making it into a semifinished article. (with new layout only applied to commissioned section that not reach the half of the full text and remaining sections is unchanged) As for "Previous version reverted to", it should be this version, because I was waiting for SmartyPants22 to move remaining sections during days between this version to his version, but he didn't. UBQITOSW (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW, you don't get to veto the method by which SmartyPants22 is hoping to restructure the article. The simplest outcome here is a block of your account for edit warring. If you want to make some other concession about your future editing, that might be enough to avoid a block. For example, you could promise to wait for agreement on the talk page before editing again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:95.148.249.169 reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: )

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

95.148.249.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
2. 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476979 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) Can you stop reverting this edit. There is a floating 'Jack' under the page heading and above the leading bio. Also see talk page for discussion RE: current career."
3. 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474855 by SuperGoose007 (talk) Hey - See ongoing Talk page discussion"
4. 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474095 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) See ongoing Talk page discussion"
5. 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964458499 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Buckby isn't known for being an author; he is known for being a far-right activist. Leading with him being an author is misleading when you consider why he has a wikipedia article to begin with. Please stop vandalising the page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:95.148.249.169 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: )

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

95.148.249.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964489937 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) User needs reminding - None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
2. 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
3. 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476979 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) Can you stop reverting this edit. There is a floating 'Jack' under the page heading and above the leading bio. Also see talk page for discussion RE: current career."
4. 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474855 by SuperGoose007 (talk) Hey - See ongoing Talk page discussion"
5. 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474095 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) See ongoing Talk page discussion"
6. 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964458499 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Buckby isn't known for being an author; he is known for being a far-right activist. Leading with him being an author is misleading when you consider why he has a wikipedia article to begin with. Please stop vandalising the page."
7. 16:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964456296 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Previous editor is insisting on including unreliable sources. I think it's fair to say Buckby isn't a far-right activist or a counter-extremism expert. He is a political commentator that was a prominent far-right activist."
8. 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964419443 by CommanderWaterford (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC) to 19:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) on Talk:Jack Buckby

Comments:

The user was warned by several other users on their Talk page but has continued to engage in edit-warring behaviour. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:91.110.151.147 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

91.110.151.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964491897 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
2. 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964487440 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) How is it not relevant? It's a wikipeda page about a person's career. That career is still on going but you, as a politically biased individual who shouldn't be editing anything, only want to portray the old stuff so you can paint him as a current far-right activist which he is not. You are deliberately trying to mislead. Why?"
3. 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964478545 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) Can you stop deleting out Jack's current career. He has left right wing media and he has published and number of books, one which calls out far-right extremism. These are actual, factual things that can be proven. What does anyone gain from you hiding these facts?"
4. 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476665 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
5. 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 18:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Please stop trying to distort his profile by deleting provable facts that show Jack Buckby is no longer a far-right activist let alone an activist of any kind and is an author and research associate with no links to the far right whatsoever. No one is denying Jack's former involvement in the far-right, but it is untrue to suggest that this is still the case. The actions to hide this information seem politically biased, in which case the editor in question should be investigated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Buckby. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
2. 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ +"
3. 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
4. 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
5. 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ r"

Comments:

User:Ralbegen reported by User:91.110.151.147

User keeps undoing revisions that demonstrate that the person the page is about is no longer involved in the far-right due to their own opinion and political prejudice. The talk page will show that their opinion as well as being irrelevant in providing factual details of the person's career is also in the minority as other users also disagree with their attempts to skew the information in order to paint the person in question as an active far-right activist.91.110.151.147 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for edit warring by User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:109.245.37.148 (Result: )

Page: Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
I would like to ask admin to take into consideration that filer had removed template messages from the article around the same time of this report, that there is ongoing discussion on TP regarding temp.msg's justification, and that removal of these msg's is highly contentious and biased. Moreover, IP themselves never participated in these discussions, but this fact did not prevent them from making "TP consensus" explanation in edit-summery. Whole thing concerns blatant COI on the part of the creator and their WP:OWN-like activities, all of which can (and will) be proven with simple contribution overview evidences and edit diff's, so I am already creating a report myself on these concerns, but I can't produce such WP:Open a COIN just-like-that, I am reading everything that I can find on COI and AB, and also to see if and how I can incorporate WP:OWN concerns.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to point out that the total of 5+ editors have been against the inclusion of tags. Rather then discussing first, the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Five editors with only one of them providing sensible argument by saying it is not way forward, the rest, and you have been one of them, "arguing" repeatedly how there is no consensus to accept the temp-msg's. Consensus isn't about counting rejection votes but measured weighing of legitimacy, adequacy and sensibility of all expressed arguments, whereas "you have no consensus" argument is not particularly persuasive one ! For the rest of your comment, I wonder if you can provide any meaningful evidence, while I must express also my bewilderment at your ability to find me anywhere.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND; actually serious concerns have been raised as well as questions - for example what is the basis for "systematic bias tag". The choice to Stonewall did not bring us anywhere, now did it? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have requested evidence for the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included. Just yesterday you have been warned for trying to weaponize administrative processes against ideological opponents on AE request on Mikola22.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kisteti reported by User:Deni Mataev (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kisteti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

He was warned earlier to not edit until a consensus was reached. [73] The issue regards the infobox and the number of Ingush people. Where he uses false numbers, from unsourced articles, and misuses otherwise official government estimations, which say something different than what he says. He refuses to settle the dispute in the Talk page, and only reacts whenever the page is reverted. I additionally opened up a thread on the DRN [74], but he doesn't respond there either, showing that he is unwilling to compromise. Several people other than me have seen the issues with his edits, but he refuses to reach any agreement and claims his edits are reverted out of spite and hostility towards his nation. Deni Mataev (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User:Kisteti has continued to revert the population figure in the infobox since 21 June in spite of being warned in the last AN3 to get consensus first. Checking the talk page shows there is no sign of any consensus at this time. Up to the present, there has been a three-person discussion where nobody else supports Kisteti's numbers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User: My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: )

Page: Valeriya Novodvorskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79] (first time the whole section was deleted)

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

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

Comments:
The user has a long history of vandalising articles be deleting large sections (-4,493‎ symbols this time) along with reliable sources. He first vandalised the article back in February 2019 by deleting around 10,000 symbols without any discussion (some of the information, including this section, was added by me). I restored and improved the article since, but now he deleted the whole section once again while keeping WP:WAR. AveTory (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)