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

IP 66.65.97.10 v myself (SMargan) RE:List of Dora the Explorer home media releases

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello arbiters (cc: Arbiters:ToBeFree & Cyphoidbomb & Respondent: 66.65.97.10)

Previously, the page List of Dora the Explorer home media releases was brought to the attention of the arbiters. It concerned the relentless edits by 66.65.97.10 which seemed to undo all the edits I had made. Looking through the 'Edit History' of that page's edits, this continual undoing of other editors' work by 66.65.97.10 seems to have gone on unabated for a number of years, and has been brought to the attention of arbiters before by other editors. 66.65.97.10 is then, as now, not giving any rationalisation for the undo changes, or any inline citations to back up the changes, and still remains, as previously, completely unresponsive.

This editor was previous barred once for 1 day by an arbiter (ToBeFree), but continued after this unbated. 66.65.97.10 was then barred by the arbiter (Cyphoidbomb) for a week, however, the week is up and the undo edits have continued. Some of the changes are dubious formatting changes, but other changes (without a single inline citation to back them up) are to existing information previously back-up with specific inline citations verifying the data provided. The new data that 66.65.97.10 has asserted is now often directly contradicting the only inline citation provided.

I do not want to start another "Editor War". The last two I unwittingly started with 66.65.97.10 were not that productive. It takes two to start an argument, therefore, I am taking it to this "Editor Warring" page and hope that this problem can be avoided. What action, if any, do I follow to react to this, i.e. attempt to communicate with this person again, make reversion corrections etc? Can someone assist, to stop these reversion changes or at least encourage 66.65.97.10 to open up a dialogue?

Can someone help avert this potential 3rd editor war between myself SMargan and 66.65.97.10.

SMargan (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@SMargan: Out of curiosity, were there any changes made that were in circumvention of the discussions that you opened on the talk page? That is, did you try to discuss ___, the editor refused to participate, was blocked, and came back and made ___ change again? If so, can you provide a short explanation of that, with diffs if possible? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

To Cyphoidbomb,

I am willing to try anything at this stage!

I have tried an alternative approach this time, to the approach I took previously. I am keeping the uncited 'release dates' that 66.65.97.10 has added, but re-adding the previous cited 'release dates' that 66.65.97.10 removed. That creates 2 sets of "release dates", which technically could be possible but is unlikely for the same year. I am then marking the united 66.65.97.10 dates with a citation needed, to prompt an explanation. This ensures that the new dates that 66.65.97.10 created do not conflict with the current inline citation.

In addition (as you have just suggested), I will create a talk page discussion thread on each of those minor "release date" changes, if that helps. I note that a previous editor also raised one of these minor reversion changes previously in that 'talk' session. It should be noted that I have created numerous discussion threads in the talk section, which 66.65.97.10 has ignored. However, I am always willing to re-attempt an opening of dialogue.

SMargan (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@SMargan: I'm not sure you understand what I was asking. Typically in an edit war, two editors are in conflict about an item in an article. For example, you previously opened a discussion because you believe, based on a DVD you have, that an episode should be "Dance to the Rescue", not "Dora's Dance to the Rescue". The anonymous editor did not participate in that discussion. Did they restore "Dora's Dance to the Rescue"? Did you open any more topics that they both didn't respond to and that they changed back to their preferred version? If not, then we likely don't have an edit war.

I do note some contradictions in these edits against some of the content at Amazon, though I doubt Amazon would be considered a reliable source. The anon changes "A Letter to Swiper" to "A Letter For Swiper". They also change that tape's release date out of alignment with Amazon's supposed release date. The same thing with "Wish on a Star"'s release date. So, I'm not exactly clear if this is a competency issue, or if they are deliberately adding erroneous information, or if they happen to be a children's entertainment savant who has memorised every Dora VHS release date somehow. Neither of these seem particularly helpful to our project for various reasons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To Cyphoidbomb and Trivialist,

Thanks once again for the time taken out of both of your busy schedules.

Also, thanks for the action taken on this matter by Trivialist in reverting the recent malicious changes made by 66.65.97.10 since my last report to you both.

----

This was my assessment of the situation:-

* I created the threads that I was previously asked to create by the arbiters, particularly for the specific areas that 66.65.97.10 recently made 'undo' editing to. 66.65.97.10 was unresponsive!

* I attempted a few compromises, as I reported that I would do, which 66.65.97.10 then maliciously undermined, i.e. 1) The compromise was retaining his uncited 'release date' data and placing a "citation needed" alert, whilst re-including the release date which I cited by an Amazon reference. 66.65.97.10 then removed the cited date and retained the uncited date, whilst keeping the Amazon inline citation (and even the "citation needed" remark!) which, as a result, then directly contradicted the 'release date' data that 66.65.97.10 had added; 2) I relented with one 66.65.97.10 change, i.e. the continually replacing the existing "N/A" with 'Colspans', by changing the existing "N/A" to a 'colspan' for continuity. 66.65.97.10 then contradictorily re-added the "N/A", and created numerous additional "Colspans" everywhere on the page.

* The changes 66.65.97.10 continually made are at odds with the inline citation references provided, 66.65.97.10 did not remove the inline citation references, 66.65.97.10 simply changed the 'release date' data to make the information contradictory to the only source provided. This is not an argument of the legitimacy of Amazon. If anyone can suggest a better reference, then I will use it. It should be pointed out that the inline citation code even has a specific ASIN tag for such Amazon data. 66.65.97.10 provided no source for the changes 66.65.97.10 had made that was more legitimate, indeed no explanation as to why the replacement data is correct, where it came from, or why it contradicted the existing retained inline citation reference.

* 66.65.97.10 had not given any explanation with the changes 66.65.97.10 had continually made, even though such an opportunity exists when making such a change.

SUMMARY: The changes that 66.65.97.10 had continually made seemed destructive, unreferenced and had an apparent underlying intention of undoing changes made by others, a behaviour he has continued for years according to the 'Edit History'.

----

I was asked to canvass my concerns here, as the correct course of action. I sought guidance on how best to proceed.

I am happy with the arbitration outcome! Thanks for both of your efforts in resolving this matter.

SMargan (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• IP 66.65.97.10 Blocked – for a period of 1 month - Disruptive editing, failure to discuss or respond to queries. The behaviour is inconsistent with community editing norms. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Major edits and violations on "Lilith" page (Result: Malformed)

• Lilith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lilith page is full of lies, she is associated with demons. It's been edited to reflect her as being Eve/Eva. They are separate individuals. These editors need to be moderated or reviewed somehow before they are allowed to post. Maybe a temp ban / suspension of their IP address. There are far too many people to list here for their false updates/edits. Other religious/spiritual, political and scientific, especially psychology/psychiatry, pages have been violated also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilith&action=history has been edited more than a couple dozen times this year and last.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4e80:23c0:b8cb:d2c6:a57a:1764 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. – EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:ArchimedesTheInventor (Result: Not an AN3 issue)

Page: Cam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Gun Powder Ma was told by administrators to refrain from following me to pages he never edited before or edited in a long time and reverting my edits in said pages. But now he's trying to skirt the rule by reverting the sentence AFTER my edit, with things his source didn't say, resorting to Original Research, and ignoring the "qualified opinions" that he himself invited to the talk page:

1. my edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. GPM's revert

Forbidden to revert my edit, GMP invited others to weigh in:

1. [1]
2. [2]

In which he stated: A redlink user wants to see in a crossbow trigger mechanism a cam (brief vid on mechanism). I disagree. Qualified opinions are welcome.

I also already asked him twice to refrain from calling me with terms such as "redlink user" here and here but he persists on doing so.

As a result of GPM's two invitations, a person with mechanical engineering background @Pbsouthwood: joined in and agreed with my revert:

1. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [4]

Administrator Black Kite said:

This is ridiculous. Pay attention, @Quishufang, Gun Powder Ma, and ArchimedesTheInventor: - if I see any of you follow another to a page you have not edited before, or have not edited for a long time, and revert them, I will block you, and the block will not be short. If I see any more gaming of the 3RR system, such as currently on Battle of Xiangyang where Quishufang has reverted (yet again) three times, I will also block, and the block will not be short. If I see any evidence of tag-teaming to win a revert war, I will block both accounts, and the blocks will not be short. I strongly suggest all of you, especially Qiu and GPM, avoid each other, and keep avoiding each other as well.

Comments:
Gun Powder Ma ignored the opinion he himself invited and persisted, trying to skirt around the rule by editing the sentence immediately after the sentence I added here in an attempt to dismiss it while side-stepping the rule administrators imposed on him. The problem is his attempt to sidestep Pbsouthwood's moderation and administrator rulings, by using as a source Joseph Needham: Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 4, Part II, p. 84

I checked the source and it did not say anything about how "the trigger mechanism did not rotate around its own axis" like how he edited into the sentence here, that's just what he claimed in the talk page here, but the source he used did not say it.

What's more, he changed the sentence right afterwards about the Greek invention of the Cam, from "An early cam was built into Hellenistic water-driven automata from the 3rd century BC", which I edited back in, into "Cams that rotated continuously and functioned as integral machine elements were built into Hellenistic water-driven Automaton from the 3rd century BC." You can check his revert here. Because of his misuse of the Needham source above, it leads me to believe that the source for the Greek invention that he used, "Millstone and Hammer. The Origins of Water Power", did not say anything about this particular machine having cams that "rotated continuously and functioned as integral machine elements", that's probably something GPM added based on what he said in the Cam talk page. The original source for that same statement on Greek cams was "Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy", which mentioned nothing about the 3rd century automaton having cams "that rotated continuously", only that there was a 3rd century automaton with a cam, with no mention of what this automaton even did, much less the type of cam it used. All the source said on pg 16 was "The cam itself is attested in water-driven automata from the third century B.C., so there is no inherent problem with the concept that the transference of rotary to reciprocating linear motion was applied in antiquity" and the sentence didn't even come with a source. The new source he replaced it with is an out-of-stock book, and with the coronavirus quarantine I doubt he went to the library just for this. Combined with how Needham was misused in the same edit and what he said in the talk page, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary. --ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 24:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The person that responded to GPM's invite also disagreed with GPM's further edits here --ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 24:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not "agree with" anyone's revert. I gave my opinion on a point of fact, of encyclopedic content, in the encyclopedia we are theoretically here to build together. I am happy to give an opinion when requested on a subject in which I have sufficient understanding of the topic to interpret the evidence. I do not appreciate having my words twisted to support squabbling. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I endorse Black Kite's advice above. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to make you feel that way, Peter Southwood. The following was what you stated, if you prefer to describe it another way then let me know and I will rephrase.

The trigger of an ancient Chinese crossbow is a typical cam mechanism, and it can be dated back to the 6th century BC (Zhang et al. 2004).}}Thank you ArchimedesTheInventor. That is sufficient for my needs. The definition given is very broad, but within the scope of my experience as a mechanical engineer, and supported by other apparently reliable sources. It may even exclude some mechanisms which would also be considered cams. Until an authoritative source can be found that rebuts that definition, I consider the point to be made. The mechanism shown in the linked video above fits that description. It may not be a "typical" cam as claimed, but it has the functional characteristics of a cam according to the quoted definition, which is sufficient. The more detailed descriptions appear to be referring to an illustration, and without inspecting the illustration I cannot say much about it.--ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Pbsouthwood. This was not an actual revert and I cannot take action against someone if they have not actually contravened the guidelines that I gave. The issue appears to have been resolved now as well. User:ArchimedesTheInventor, whilst I appreciate you bringing the issue up here, it's not really a matter for the AN3 noticeboard, so if you have concerns about any of these issues in the future, I would ask that you post to my talkpage rather than here. I can always move it to here or another admin board if I feel it warrants it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• I changed a sentence that ArchimedesTheInventor not only never touched but that was in fact added by myself a very long while ago. I pointed that out immediately on the talk page. ArchimedesTheInventor's behaviour is not only disruptive but also dishonest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• That is incorrect, the sentence you recently added had to do with the 600BC trigger mechanism that I edited into the article, what you added back in 2008 is an entirely different sentence and solely had to do with Hellenistic automaton, not the Chinese trigger mechanism. More importantly to the matter at hand, the source you used did not support your edit.

You added that the cam trigger mechanism "did not rotate around its axis". This was merely what you (wrongly) claimed in the Cam talk page, but the source itself that you used to justify this change said nothing of the sort. Ergo if you want to talk about honesty, why don't you quote just where in Needham did he ever claim that the Chinese crossbow trigger "did not rotate around its axis"? I already asked you to provide the quote both here and in the Cam talk page. If you cannot quote where Needham made such a statement, then you shouldn't be accusing others of dishonesty and disruptive behavior. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kipps20 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Half a Sixpence (2016 musical) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kipps20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 10:18, 14 April 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:28, 15 April 2020 "Undid revision 950994573 by Loriendrew (talk)"
2. 18:34, 17 April 2020‎ "Undid revision 951300352 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 02:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 951780105 by Loriendrew (talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 18 April 2020‎ "Warning: Edit warring on Half a Sixpence (2016 musical). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:09, 18 April 2020‎ "→‎Amateur productions: new section"

Comments:

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure: Only professional productions should be included in this section, following the conditions set in WP:NOTABILITY. Amateur productions will be deleted without discussion.. Kipps20, who so far falls under a single purpose account, has only edit this article, adding an unsourced amateur production. As the WProject guidelines show to remove these types of productions (which also don't meet any form of notability), I removed not only the added one but all the listed amateur productions with a full description in the edit summary. After the first revert I sent a welcome message as well as a link to the guidelines, an EW notices after the second, as well as a repeated posting to the article's talk page. Kipps20 has yet again replaced these productions and posted an edit warring notice on my talk page. Not sure how many other forms of notifications can be communicated to engage a conversation.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Yosemiter reported by User:73.70.13.107 (Result: OP blocked)

Page: List of Lego themes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yosemiter (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments: I don't understand how this report form works or what i'm supposed to put in the "diff" fields but please do something about this guy

Result: OP blocked. El_C 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Axelcabrera100 reported by User:FOX 52 (Result: one week, partial)

Page: Venezuelan Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axelcabrera100 (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. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notified, notice deleted

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt notice deleted restored

Comments:
Edit warring commenced with User: Ckfasdf, and had been notified to no avail, warrior chose to revert & delete all notifications. - FOX 52 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Wclifton968 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: 6 months)

Page

Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wclifton968 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952393377 by MarkH21 (talk) stop trying to start an edit war between wikipedians and conservapedians"
2. 00:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "The Edit war can now begin! But what is really so bad about The Epoch Times that they cannot be Cited on the English Wikipedia?"
3. 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC) "added Epoch Times Documentary which concluded that its likely that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[11]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor seems intent on edit warring against multiple editors and global consensus at WP:RSP, with edit summaries like The Edit war can now begin!. This is despite COVID-19 general sanctions, three recent warnings on their talk page, requests to them to take this specific issue to the talk page, a recent disruptive editing block, and past EW/RS blocks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 02:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbanic reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nbanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12] (First edit by user Nbanic)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:41, 21 April 2020
2. 06:15, 22 April 2020‎
3. 06:33, 22 April 2020
4. 09:38, 22 April 2020‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] - also multiple discussions at Talk:Josip Broz Tito

Comments:
Hi, so user Nbanic has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages, for example this one in question Josip Broz Tito and Socialist Republic of Croatia where I tried to start a dispute resolution: [15], unfortunately without any success. As you can see on the View history page of Josip Broz Tito, she/he has made multiple reverts even when multiple users engaged. It is hard to edit Wikipedia when a user constantly reverts and reverts even when he is given an option to discuss the issue on the talk page. I don't know what to do and now it seems that I have no other option then to file a report. This was all time consuming, unproductive and really disturbing. Nbanic just wants to push his own POV. Other users have pointed out that user Nbanic has some "family history" [16] regarding Josip Broz Tito which shows that he can't be objective on the matter and is not seeking to reach NPOV. Thanks in advance --Tuvixer (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I did not engage in an edit war. When I first started editing on the page about Socialist State of Croatia, Tuvixer started reverting my edits and calling for a discussion. I started a discussion on the talk page, he did not respond for over a week so I put the sourced content that I proposed in the page and then he started iteratively deleting it. It seems to me that he is trying to push a certain point of view by deleting valid sourced content. As for my family history, the user Peacemaker67 made a suggestion without even knowing where I live or who I am. Nbanic (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Even now, after user Nbanic was reported here and notified: [17], she/he still made a new edit on the Josip Broz Tito article: [18]. What can I say. This kind of behavior demonstrated by user Nbanic is disrupting, and kills the will to edit on Wikipedia. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional information: this is where Tuvixer reverted my edits: [[[19]]], then I edited the talk page and put my arguments for the mentiond edit, I waited for several days, nobody seemed to have anything against the edits, then I edited the page again here after 9 days: [[[20]]], this is when Tuvixer claimed that this was unexplained: [[[21]]], and this is where all the problems started. He did not try do engage in a discussion, but seemed to be pushing his own point of view. Nbanic (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the Tito page, I just added an additional reference to the already present claim in the page. This should not be a problem since it further strengthens the given claim and it is connected to one of his claims about the trial being or not being a show trial in the talk page. Nbanic (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I also tried in the talk pages engage with Tuvixer in a discussion, but he repeatedly tried to avoid it by trying to frame me with a question. After seeing his talk page, I was able to see that he was already prone to such problems and it made things slightly more clear to me as to why he would not engage in a discussion as expected by the Wikipedia rules. Nbanic (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Additinoally, as for the Tito page, it was the user and admin Peacemaker67 who finally put a stop on Tivuxer's edit warring in terms of reverting the addition of sourced content as can be seen here: [[22]] Nbanic (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User Nbanic is not denying that he violated the 3 revert rule. He is now making false claims. User Peacemaker67 has reverted user Nbanic after multiple disruptive edits by user Nbanic as can be seen here: [23] . User Nbanic has not "tried in the talk pages engage with Tuvixer in a discussion", she/he did not want to start the discussion in a civil manner and has behaved like a child attacking me on a personal basis. I have stated multiple times that I am for a discussion and to resolve everything in a civil manner, as can be seen on the talk pages of the respected articles. I have started the discussions and tried to engage but despite that user Nbanic has made multiple edits to the disputed parts of the articles in question. Also on the subject about the trial of Aloysius Stepinac, user Nbanic made zero edits in the article about Aloysius Stepinac, which proves that he is only interested in making POV push. That is why he often engages in edit wars and can't edit Wikipedia in a civil manner and that is why other users can't engage with him in any reasonable way possible. That is the essence of the problem. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User Tuvixer was the first to violate the 3 revert rule if someone did a violation. As for the allegedly false claim, this is not true. User Peacemaker67 indeed did revert some of my edits, but with constructive comments and after I fixed that, he even thanked me for one such edit. Later, however, user Tuvixer tried to revert that as well only to be reverted in turn by user Peacemaker67. Furthermore, as can be seen in the talk pages, I tried to engage in a discussion with user Tuvixer, but he repeatedly did not want to do that. Instead, he tried to frame me into a situation with an ill-posed question and he did not want to answer my questions. As for the original Stepinac page, it already contains the content that I think is important so there was no need in changing that page. Why to edit it then? I read it and maybe even used some of the content from there. Now, user Tuvixer repeatedly deleted the sourced content that I tried to put in the appropriate places on other pages without giving a reason thus engaging in an edit war. That is the essence of the problem. Nbanic (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The comment above shows, once again, that user Nbanic, unfortunately does not know how Wikipedia works. That is way it is hard to edit Wikipedia when he is involved. Unlike user Nbanic who had to be reverted multiple times by multiple users I was reverted only once by user Peacemaker67 and after that I did not engage in a edit war. I tried to improve the article but user Nbanic maliciously reverted my edit and by that he violated the 3 revert rule, the fact which he does not deny. User Nbanic again uses childish arguments accusing me that I did what he has done repeatedly. The comment above shows that user Nbanic engaged in an edit war with intent to do exactly that. I tried to engage in a civil discussion but user Nbanic did not even affirm that he is going to stop edit-warring. How is it possible to engage in a civil discussion when other party does not even want to promise that they are not going to start an edit war all over again? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear 3RR violation. Number 57 12:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:Slatersteven (No violation )

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

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

Their Response to my asking for a justification for the mass deletion of sources was this [[30]]. Note that the user is aware of DS sanctions being applied to this page [[31]]Slatersteven Its hard to keep track of when they breached 3RR (and they have made 4 reverts) as they have made so many edits over a 48 hour period. So I stated with their first removal of content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This was their response to being told about this edit war report [[32]]Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And while Sitush response to Slatersteven's query was rude, it was also an understandable reaction to the trolling and personal attacks they have been facing by numerous sock accounts in relation t this and related articles. Pinging Bishonen, Doug Weller since they have been kept busy admining these pages over the past few days and are familiar with the issue.

Urge both editors to step back from the precipice. Abecedare (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC) (fixed formatting typo. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC))

As I said there are a lot of edits, three were reverts on the same day (and the only reason there was not a four is I backed off), here is a revert (a revert is any edit that undoes another editors work) within the same 24 hour period [[33]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Genuine question: Are you familiar with the clean-up efforts and recent issues at Chitraguptavanshi_Kayastha? Or, had you seen, for example, this note on Sitush's talkpage in which they were being thanked for their work in the area, which you mass-reverted twice? Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, nor do I see the relevance, if they breached 3rr they breached 3rr. Not if they undid vandalism that is fine, did they solely undo vandalism? I mass undid because then asked "please explain" they failed to give a valid justification.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I took a look at the history of this article and it does appear to be plagued by disruptive editing, pov editing, and sock puppetry and have protected it for the time being. Slatersteven, you probably know I have a lot of respect for you, but to do a revert of many, many edits, each with their own edit summaries, with a "refusal to explain" is asking a rather lot. Best, imo, to just let this go. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually no I was not aware anyone here but a few POV pushers who get the wrong end of the stick had any respect for me. I ready know this is not going anywhere, but points were made that needed a response to. Close it by all means, as long as no more comments are made about my actions,.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Nanobee reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

Page

Electromagnetic radiation and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952483687 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
2. 13:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952483236 by McSly (talk)"
3. 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952482602 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC) to 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "health effects of microwaves"
   2. 13:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Microwaves & Millimeter waves (Mobile Phones) */"
5. 02:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "carcinogenic and immunosuppressive effects of microwave radiation in the spectrum of mobile phones"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Welcome! */ WP:GOODBIAS"
3. 13:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Electromagnetic radiation and health. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Pseudoscience"

Comments:

• Seems Nanobee is disrupting Talk pages: "Wikipedia is only such a shitty source for scientific information, since it's run by degenerated, corporate funded, mongrel echelons like you." Probably time for a block per WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for personal attacks. The user is certainly giving the impression they are WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Pratap Pandit reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: No violation )

Page

2020 Palghar mob lynching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pratap Pandit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "This is the most important information. The abstract needs this. Remove the entire abstract if you think it is duplicate."
2. 14:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "This is the most important information. The abstract needs this. Remove the entire abstract if you think it is duplicate"
3. [34]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2020 Palghar mob lynching. (TW)"
2. 14:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* April 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [35]

Comments:

personal attack on another editor GreaterPonce665 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the personal attack ? These users are not answering any of my question properly and simply accusing me of things that I have never done. All My edits are with proof from news sites but they are removing. The user is saying it is nor fit for LEAD, but it is THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE of the article. Please see this news article why it is important. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/no-muslim-arrested-for-palghar-lynching-incident-maharashtra-minister-anil-deshmukh/articleshow/75288363.cms

I also explained on talk page but they did not reply why they are removing my edits.

I made only 2 edits so I have not violated the 3 revert rule that this user explained on my wall, nor am I making edits anymore. So how can they file this false report ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm. Since Pratap Pandit has not reverted since the notification on their talk page, nor have they apparently violated 3RR, I think this can be closed. Note to the filer, you should, generally, wait till a revert after the 3RR warning before filing a report here. I'm more concerned about the tag teaming and brow beating of this new user. For example, User:Brihaspati in [[36]] accuses the editor of NPA violations in [this edit]. Various editors have left increasingly ominous warnings on Pratap Pandit's talk page. I'm going to close this but the filer and User:Brihaspati should note that aggressive warnings is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No violation but filer and others should note my comment above--regentspark (comment) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

regentspark Thank you for checking the articles. Brihaspati, KartikMistry and GreaterPonce665 had been threatening and ganging up on me and had made a complete mockery of rules here. After MrClog intervened, they have already restored the line on which these people were edit warring with me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:119.94.98.67 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Blocked)

Page

Animal Planet (Southeast Asian TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952555231 by JalenFolf (talk)"
2. 18:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952504847 by Finngall (talk)"
3. 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952498907 by Finngall (talk)"
4. 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 952404063 by Mcampany (talk)"
5. 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Okay"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animal Planet (Southeast Asian TV channel). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly reverting redirection without explanation. Anon has shown an unwillingness to discuss. In addition to the evidence presented, they are also approaching 3RR on ABS-CBN Foundation as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Added another revert. I tried reverting just recently, only for it to happen again. User has now exceeded 3RR at the other article as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 36 hours by User:Rosguill for edit warring across multiple pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:NotScaredOfAVirus reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NotScaredOfAVirus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43]
8. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Comments: I have not been involved in this edit war, but have had it filling up my time line long enough that I needed to bring it here. This user is refusing to discuss the issue and is reverting two other users consistently. The others may need to be looked at as well as one of the other users has been blocked 11 times previously for edit warring on this same page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Amorals reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Sock and master blocked)

Page

Gretchen Whitmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Tenure */We cannot note analysis of the protests without noting both sides. We are merely describing what happened. Please stand down w/ the POV edits"
2. 23:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Tenure */It is not like an opinion, it is like a fact, that an event is indelible whereas polls change frequently. Additionally, it breaks up the linguistic flow of the passage"
3. 21:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Tenure */A single poll (which changes by the week) is not equivalent to an event that’s been widely covered in RS"
4. 17:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Tenure */Gratuitous addition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gretchen Whitmer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Health tracing paragraph - notable? */"
2. 20:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Operation: Gridlock falsehoods */"
3. 23:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Operation: Gridlock falsehoods */"

Comments:

Straightforward case here; user has thus far declined an opportunity to self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a straightforward case. User who filed the report had engaged in multiple reverts themselves to established content w/o consensus. Additionally, they elected not to leave a message on my talk page first but went straight to the draconian route. Amorals (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, it's clearly straightforward - there's four reverts right there. You have reverted literally every edit I've made to the page today, except for the most recent one — are you going to revert that one too? Yes, I undid a couple edits - but I stopped because I recognize that there's a bright-line rule to follow. You haven't recognized that and you haven't followed the rule. You're welcome to undo your most recent revert, as I asked on your talk page. But you declined, so this became necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I will offer the point that NorthBySouthBaranof had himself done multiple reverts to established content without reaching consensus. The edits done by Amorals manually were primarily undoing these. Also, the user filling this report had engaged in retaliatory edits on said page which other users like User talk:CharlesShirley had complained about Bsubprime7 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have not gotten an alert of your comments under heading “April 2020” on my talk page, it is only now that I am seeing it for some reason. Had I seen this and known that you were taking things so personally I would have been willingly to settle things on the talk page. If you are so inclined, perhaps you could withdraw this report and we can settle things the Democratic way on the talk page. My apologies, thanks. Amorals (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As I suspected, sockpuppetry was afoot. Both accounts indef'd by Bradv (talk · contribs) - master was Bsubprime7. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:67.254.193.126 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gregor Strasser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.254.193.126 (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. [46] 02:32, 23 April 2020
2. [47] 02:48, 23 April 2020
3. [48] 04:50, 23 April 2020
4. [49] 13:24, 23 April 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

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

Comments:
This IP has also violated the 3RR in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and German Social Union (West Germany).

They already have 2 previous blocks for edit-warring, so something longer should be considered. Please also check their recent contribs which are full of yellow filter triggers. --Pudeo (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In the past, 184.153.38.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 141.161.133.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.161.133.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have also done similar mass-scale POV-pushing, and all four use the same edit summary of "Fairness and specificity": [51][52][53][54] 184... has another edit-warring block. --Pudeo (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Found another presently active IP using the "Fairness and specificity" edit summary: 24.228.198.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The person behind this is industrious. --Pudeo (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month in view of the IP's previous blocks and their hits on the edit filter. If you are right that the IP addresses listed above are all the same person, we might have to do individual blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Charles3377

Hello,

@Charles3377:, a new Wikipedian, has, out of his alleged self-desire, made various seemingly disruptive edits regarding a denomination that he has created in Christianity, which bears conflict of interest in sustaining the ethos of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. His contributions, albeit in seemingly good faith until the rejection of his draft at Draft:Bapticostal Church International, were about the movement which fuses Baptist teachings with Pentecostalism. His alleged advertising-based, and denominationally-biased contributions thereafter have been reverted by various contributors. The issue seemed to be finished at hand, however, it isn't. Almost back-to-back this fledgling contributor has appeared to have asserted his efforts to making a name for himself and his own self-established denomination as if it were notable. This is why I have come to the English Wikipedia administration to help solve the alleged matter. Thank you.

--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)