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:Sacrifice06 reported by User:Lingvulo (Result: )

Pages: Bono people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Bono state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Bono dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Twi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Fante dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Akan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), among others
User being reported: Sacrifice06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (Bono people):

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Bono state):

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Bono dialect):

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Twi):

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Fante dialect):

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Akan language):

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diffs of attempts to resolve disputes on user talk page:

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

Comments:

(I am relatively (~6 months) new to Wikipedia, so, while I have looked through the guidelines, I apologize for any errors in this report or in my handling of the issue.)

I have been in an edit war with this user for a while now. Neither of us, to my knowledge, has directly violated 3RR, but I believe the edit histories for these articles nonetheless show an edit war. The user is apparently a Bono nationalist, as they have made some nationalist claims, including the following:

• "Bono Twi is the earliest form of Akan language and more also a parental Twi." ([28]) The Bono dialect is the most conservative dialect, but it is neither the earliest form of Akan (as it's impossible for any living language to be older than its contemporaries) nor the "parent" of Twi (as it's not the oldest form of Twi, as it's impossible for any living language to be older than its contemporaries).
• Editing the "Etymology" section in Fante dialect to state that a.) there is only one possible etymology for the name "Fante" instead of several, b.) that that etymology is in reference to specifically the Bono people instead of the Asante, and c.) that there are no historical or linguistic problems with that etymology, by way of removing all mention of those problems from the article. [29].
• Editing Twi and all mentions of Twi to include Bono (and sometimes Fante) as dialects of Twi (e.g. [30]). Twi (itself a dialect of Akan) traditionally includes only Asante and Akuapem as its major dialects; Fante and Bono are treated as separate dialects of Akan.
• Persistently editing these statements back in after they've been edited out.

The user's edits are also generally poorly-written and disorganized. Any attempt I've made to edit them, remove unnecessary information, include better sources, or make them read better has been reverted, most notably in [31] and [32] but in all these articles as well, hence the edit warring. (They appear not to know how to revert edits, or are intentionally not reverting them, because their actual edit-reverting takes place by manually editing the relevant sections, so they don't display as reverts per se despite having precisely the same effect.)

I have attempted to make the user aware of these issues as politely as I could and to work constructively with them ([33], [34], [35]), but they have been surprisingly hostile ([36], [37], [38]), including directly challenging me to report them here.

(On another note, the account may also be a sockpuppet of another user, User:Bosomba Amosah. This pattern and attitude towards editing these articles (i.e., the edit war) began with User:Bosomba Amosah, who then suddenly stopped (possibly due to a ban?), and User:Sacrifice06 immediately continued it. User:Sacrifice06 was also the only user to support User:Bosomba Amosah's proposal to move "Abron tribe" to "Bono tribe" [39]. I don't know if this is sufficient evidence for sockpuppetry, so this is only a note; I believe the above paragraphs are enough evidence for edit warring and nationalist editing, however.)

If I have done anything wrong, or if there is more evidence necessary, please let me know. I'd put quite a lot of work into the Central Tano language articles and it's disheartening to see their quality degraded like this.

Lingvulo (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me noble administrators for going against the rules in this community, however i have an edit tussle with this my fellow simply because he only aims to clear all the relevant information relating to Bono articles only. He seems to fuss over only Bono related articles only. He is posing as writer of the various Central Tano Languages but he seems to know less about these languages. He doesnt know Bono Twi is parenatl Twi and the earliest form of Akan language. on page 115 and 116, , and all other information relating to Akan languages can be found in this book, however my fellow editor has despised this truth and have decided to do otherwise. He even tried to connect "Fante people" history to "Ashanti people" on Fante dialect's etymology, which is never true, Fante people's etymology is connected to to their "Bono people" or brethren. He has also tried several times to erase all the relevant information on Bono related articles only. For instance , , , of which if he tries anytime, a notification is given on the unreliable content information and of course weak informattion source. This can be traced on the various article's pages, and on the various pages histories. All the Bono related articles are highly sourced, of which it can be found on article's talk page. Anytime i notify him, he deletes those notification on his talk page. Once again pardon me for any wrong doing. ThanksSacrifice06 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Going against the rules in this community" is precisely the issue discussed here. I've got no interest in drama; just wait for an admin response. Lingvulo (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You see am being frank here by admitting any mistake i have committed, if we are discussing about "Going against the rules in this community", then i believe you have done more "reverts" or "edit warring" than i did. I believe Administrators reviewing the histories of the various article pages would get to know the truth. And also why you have deleted all the notices i sent to you on your user talk page. Thanks.Sacrifice06 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• It appears to me that User:Sacrifice06 and User:Lingvulo are equally guilty of edit warring. However User:Sacrifice06 the only one to engage in personal attacks, such as "Stop the camouflage and deceit". I invite Sacrifice06 to explain why they shouldn't be blocked for making personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please EdJohnston i don't mean to personally attack anyone with all due respect and i believe my fellow editor User:Lingvulo also do not wished to do the same. However as a result of the tussle between us, i was referring to him on his talk page why he kept on deleting those notices i have sent to him. But rather keep on pointing to me of edit warring, knowing very well of his actions and mine as well. So i believe finally the truth is out, we should all take note of it, to promote the health of this noble community. Once again Pardon both of us for any guilt. ThanksSacrifice06 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, User:Sacrifice06, you have been quite actively hostile for some time, e.g. [40], since before I cleared my talk page - which, I may note, I cleared because I'd rather not host personal attacks there. (If doing so happens to be a rule violation, I can't say I was aware.) I've tried to be polite ([41], [42], [43]), but you have been surprisingly rude in response - this not to mention the edit warring and nationalist editing, as was the original issue, nor the unrepentant and unapologetic challenge to report you ([44]).

I do admit to the edit warring, the rules regarding which I'd initially misunderstood; I take full credit for this and apologize. Once more, I have no interest in drama, so I'd like to accept whichever punishment is deemed appropriate, then continue researching and editing following it. Thank you. Lingvulo (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Things need to be sorted out here User:Lingvulo, to err is human, i have even apologised on our behalf's, being guilty of edit warring and breaking any other commnunity rules. Sorry for any hostility, as i have let bygone be bygone. Once again Administrator, pardon me and my friend for the guilt. We would all work towards ensuring the health of this noble community and follow the rules as well. Thanks. Sacrifice06 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As much as I would like to, User:Sacrifice06, I don't believe this is an earnest apology. I'd put up warnings on three occasions ([45], [46], [47]), describing what is described here in as friendly a manner as I could; I received hostility and insults in return ([48], [49], [50]), including a very direct challenge to report, at which point the apologies offered above would have been more appropriate. What is given here does not serve as an excuse for User:EdJohnston's request, nor do statements as general as "to err is human" and "let bygone be bygone". What was pasted repeatedly on my talk page was indeed a personal attack.

Again, I do not want drama, and I would like this to be ended as soon and, preferably, as amicably as possible. Lingvulo (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Lingvulo, i thought we are cool now. Lets all be earnest, i initially sent you a message [51] to stop clearing the Bono related articles only. You deleted those messages and later pointed to me of edit warring. Then i sent you this message [52] to alert you to stop pointing to me of edit warring and moreover stop deleting the notices or messages, because your actions also leads to edit warring. This was the real meaning of my message and nothing else. So i even explained to User:EdJohnston and apologised. As i said, i do not personally mean to attack anyone, never. So please lets move on and stop this drama. Please Administrators pardon me and my friend for the guilt, and i also apologised to anyone i have offended throughout my means of communication. Thanks. Sacrifice06 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Atlas0001 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Talk:Killing of George Floyd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atlas0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: There's been a shifting discussion going on, but the addition of an SPA tag is the issue

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]
7. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

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

Comments:

We've got an WP:SPA arguing that any criminal record George Floyd had is absolutely relevant to him being murdered, and doesn't want other users noting that he's made no other edits. I'm WP:involved otherwise they wouldn't be here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ian.thomson is removing dissenting opinions under the disguise of "trolling" then using the personally-curated discussion to "prove" his desired consensus. 71.197.184.205 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed posts that were comparing editors to Orwellian fascists -- that is trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• • As a sign of his personal bias in this discussion, see the recent history on his own userpage. 71.197.184.205 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

All it takes to say that black lives matter is to not be a racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• • And this edit shows complete contempt for anything that constitutes "American conservatives and moderates". This person is so ideologically possessed that thinks moderates do not have a valid opinion on wikipedia. 71.197.184.205 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're SmooveMike? Also, One America News Network and InfoWars are on the WP:FRINGEs of the far-right. It's a trollish lie to say that dismissing those is contempt for conservatives and moderates. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely because obvious. Guy (help!) 23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Ian.thomson: From a CU standpoint it would be more accurate to block for the edit-warring, tendentiousness etc. as opposed to being a sock of Urgal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

71.197 is who I suspected was Urgal/SmooveMike, never commented on Atlas0001. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Urgal should be linked to either the account or the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo, no problem, do you want me to change the block log entry? Guy (help!) 07:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy it's probably a good idea as they're appealing the sockblock. There are many reasons why the account should remain blocked (treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks, tendentious editing...) the sock bit is just adding a loophole for them. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo, done - changed to WP:NOTHERE. If your reaction tot he death of George Floyd is outrage that Wikipedia doesn't mention his unrelated police record, well, we can probably do without you. Guy (help!) 16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Carrothappy9 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Kardashian family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Carrothappy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960637537 by Kbabej (talk)"
2. 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960639481 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
3. 02:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960637537 by Kbabej (talk)"
4. 02:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960627218 by Kbabej (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RedWarn rev12)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring over an unhelpful image...; blanked talk page after warnings RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

lol Happycarrot9 will be deleting his account soon so report him it wont make a difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrothappy9 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Their edits on my and Materialscientist's talk page indicate WP:NOTHERE; and they've indicated that they will create additional accounts as a form of block evasion so could we also have a CU check for sleeper accounts once this gets dealt with? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Carrothappy9 was temporarily blocked for 31 hours by JzG at 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:JzG for disruptive editing, N.J.A. | talk 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. Samerkov reported by User:Tofusaurus (Result: Warned)

Page: Dewan Rakyat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Samerkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Constant edit warring over the article due to personal political bias. Mr. Samerkov (talk · contribs) has also been warned over edit warring in the past. He has also been targeting and harassing other editors, claiming them as cybertroopers of a certain political party. Tofusaurus (talk / contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is repeated behaviour. A previous edit war was refereed to AN/I (by an equally culpable editor), but did not attract attention and was archived. Dewan Rakyat was protected following a request I made to RfPP, and disruption died down. While, Mr. Samerkov is definitely edit warring again, I do note that they have now made a post on the talkpage. It's not the best talkpage post, but out of the significant number of IPs and editors that have been warring over the article, they are the only one to have done so so far. A partial block focused on this page may be useful in encouraging further discussion. CMD (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Fine, I took a blame. Seriously if you really want to block me. Im Nothing to blame. But it's not about political belief or not. Sometime i can't trust any website except from the Real Website such as Berita Harian or New Strait Times i would Accept it. I doing for what the best. CMD was Right, maybe i was a Fool or Too Harsh lately. But Please, just Let me do what's the best i can. I won't bother Dewan Rakyat but il try to stay away with it. Block me as you want. Im not coming back after this.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Samerkov, I recommend instead of editing the article, you instead post links of Berita Harian or New Strait Times articles that support your edits on Talk:Dewan Rakyat for others to look over. CMD (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the post i got https://www.bharian.com.my/node/696373/amp&ved=2ahUKEwiuk4aVr-npAhXT7XMBHcteDfIQiJQBMAN6BAgPEAM&usg=AOvVaw0bA2Fwxe2UM4K4cHheeulv&ampcf=1 <ref> and Some people always get fooled by PH suppoters. I already send talk on dewan rakyat but non of them could speak up. Mr. Samerkov (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mr. Samerkov is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnsmith1221 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing)

Page

Boogaloo movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Johnsmith1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "libertarian"
2. 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "preppers"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC) to 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "are both sides"
   2. 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "removing bias"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Boogaloo movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Pick your poison on the talk page, there are tens of edit requests along the same vein, with no reliable sources provided to contradict the "far-right" descriptor. "Libertarian" already exists as a description of some of the groups further down in the article, but sourcing does not support applying it to all.

Comments:

User continually removing sourced description of the group and replacing it with unsourced description GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They've stopped for now. I'm unimpressed with their editing history, which appears to fall into the watering-down-to-mush school of POV-pushing. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, yeah. Hadn't really dug into it until you mentioned it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:173.27.36.240 reported by User:Classicwiki (Result: No violation)

Page

Up (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

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:

• No violation per WP:3RR, plus edits appear to have stopped N.J.A. | talk 11:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:ControversyCovered reported by User:Creffett (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Lenzie Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960758501 by Creffett (talk)"
2. 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960758501 by Creffett (talk)"
3. 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960754888 by SuperMarioMan (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC) to 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960743272 by XLinkBot (talk)"
   2. 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Black Lives Matter Controversy */"
5. 17:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lenzie Academy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I would block for a 3RR violation myself, but since I reverted one of their edits (only found it because it flagged as an addition of The Sun), bringing here for an uninvolved opinion. The editor in question has not engaged despite talk page warnings. Their username also pretty strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW. creffett (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | tålk 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: )

Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Falun Gong#The Last Paragraph of the Lead Section

Comments:

• Its not a bright line 3rr as its spread over three days but its on a page under discretionary sanctions and the conduct is getting out of hand. User:Marvin 2009 (who now goes by Precious Stone) has apparently been disrupting Falun Gong related pages since 2015 (User talk:Marvin 2009/Archive 1) with a great deal of regularity. There are also repeated claims of “per talk page” and “see talk page” but there isn't actually any consensus anywhere on the talk page which supports these changes. I don’t feel like I’m being engaged with in good faith on the talk page either, especially because they insist on reverting during the talk page discussion process claiming that its been worked out on the talk page when it clearly hasn’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Actually now that I dig a little deeper the user’s first edits appear to be to move their page to "NTDTV Vocal Competition” and they appear to have had the intention of promoting the show which is produced by New Tang Dynasty Television. I’ve placed a COI notice on their talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

1. As to the "NTDTV Vocal Competition" issue User:Horse Eye Jack raised, I announce here I am not related to NTDTV in anyway. If my memory is correct, that was over 10 years ago, when I just applied the Wikipedia account, I noticed there was such an interesting vocal competition. I tried to upload a short video and create a page for introducing the event (Nobody paid me to do so!) , and at the same time for learning and practicing Wikipedia editing. As I was not familiar, I failed to upload a proper video nor create the page. I have never been a part of NTDTV. I was not clear about the rules when I just applied an account.

2. I remember, in the past, before some activists who tried to promote their narratives on sensitive pages like Falun Gong article without reliable sources, were eventually banned, they sometimes were in heated arguments with me (including leaving many false accusations on my talk page), because I tried to prevent them from disrupting Wikipedia. STSC (talk · contribs) and Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs) were two such examples.

3. WP:ARBFLG's decision in 2007 showed two anti-FG activist usernames were indefinitely banned for the editing the Falun Gong related topic, and multiple other users were temporally banned. Before my recent edits on this article, I have not touched this sensitive topic for over a year. Recently I noticed it appears that a kind of activism is in the working to add WP:OR contents in the name of reliable sources; after reviewing the sources as per WP:V, however, one can easily see the reliable sources are actually misrepresented or misused. Here is only one example, the line 'The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad' or similar meaning is not covered by the provided NYT source and other sources. In this edit, there were multiple misrepresentations as i detailed them in the article's talk page. To prevent Wikipedia article from being disrupted was the reason I started to edit in this topic after over 1 year.

4. When I said per "talk page" in the editing summary, I meant I provided the details on the talk page on how User:Horse Eye Jack's added contents were not supported by the provided sources I never said it had been worked out on the talk page. At the same, I provided some explanations for individual changes in the editing summary and on the talk page.

5. User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting: a, b, c, and failed to provide reasonable grounds and deleted many reliable sources. I am surprised I am the one who was reported:) Precious Stone 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

6 It seems Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) has “unclean hands”:), as Horse Eye Jack has edit warred extensively, without convincing other users on the talk page. I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Horse_Eye_Jack_continued_undiscussed_mass_removal_of_sources is a recent example showing that mass removals Without discussion is common to this user, the same as what he did on the Falun Gong article in the past 3 days. I have tried talking this through on the talk page, but Horse Eye Jack doesn’t appear interested in seriously engaging there. Please note that Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) never edited this page prior to April and Bloodofox (talk · contribs) never edited this page prior to mid May, but they are acting as though they own these pages. Precious Stone 00:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You were most recently reverted by Bloodofox (talk · contribs) not me, their edit summary reads "Are you serious with these edits?”[72] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox (talk · contribs) was the user [who first added those WP:OR content. No surprise he would revert. Before his revert, Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)'s continuous reverts supported Bloodofox (talk · contribs)'s original research contents. Precious Stone 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

These articles have a serious problem with editors such as this one coming out of the woodwork and attempting to scrub, obfuscate, or blur any mention of the political involvement of this particular new religious movement. A few choice quotes for users unfamiliar with Falun Gong and its extensions, such as The Epoch Times, or Shen Yun:

Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.

Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online Archived 26 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

And according to NBC News:

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

The Epoch Times, digital production company NTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.

Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online Archived 23 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine.

These articles could all use way more eyes to fend off the constant attempts at turning them into promotional pieces. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox (talk · contribs) , I have no problem with contents supported by reliable sources, whether they are true or not true. However, the line "The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" you added to the lead section of the article, cannot be supported by the 6 sources you provided, including these above 2 ones. No lines with similar meanings to these 2 lines exist in these 6 sources. As i said to User:Horse Eye Jack in the talk page, he is welcome to add any reliable source supported contents, but WP:NOR should be followed.

Today Bloodofox (talk · contribs) also deleted a lot reliable sources without any ground, and so did Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs). I am listing these deleted sources below:

• http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301%7Carchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690
• https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/06/17/the-china-tribunal-pronounced-its-verdict-on-organ-harvesting-in-china/
• http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

May Bloodofox (talk · contribs) and Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) answer why these reliable sources and the contents from them should be deleted? Is it because the views from the sources are different with yours? Precious Stone 23:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

But its not now and never was OR... Its always been a clear and rather conservative summary of the information contained in the WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:V states: “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.”

From the 6 sources in the past 3 days you failed to find any info that supported 'The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad' or 'The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun'. Precious Stone 23:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources I gave were some of the same quoted extensively above by Bloodofox, there has always been inline citations to reliable sources which directly support the material. I am also going to ask you to stop refactoring your comments after you’ve been responded to per WP:TALK#REPLIED. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"The sources I gave were some of the same quoted extensively above by Bloodofox, there has always been inline citations to reliable sources which directly support the material". This is a false statement again, as you did many false statement on the Falun Gong talk page. There have never been citations from these sources supporting the material.

Above, I added the 6th point, some of the deleted links by you and bloodofox,and adjusted format, as I was not aware of the rule. Okay, I will try not to make changes after they have been responded. Precious Stone 01:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by User:Bstephens393:
I'd like to chip in here as an uninvolved editor (albeit occasionally participating on the article's talk page.) I oppose all edit warring, but the complainant in this case seems to have unclean hands. It looks like both User:Horse Eye Jack and User:Bloodofox have recently engaged in such behavior, all the while refusing to discuss in good faith on the talk page, despite several requests and reminders. Furthermore, neither seems to have edited the page before last month, but now they are exercising very definite ownership over it -- e.g. declaring their preferred version of the lede to be a fait accomplis, but without answering almost any of the questions raised about the merits of their changes.

Beyond WP:V and WP:RS, the concerns are mostly about due weight, including the role of an extensive corpus of peer-reviewed literature vs. newspaper articles, among other things. The aforementioned editors have behaved as if these questions weren't legitimate concerns in the least, perhaps since they would complicate the editors' preferred narrative-building. In addition, they have repeatedly made serious ad hominem accusations of bad faith against other editors. I wish everybody would just get along and follow the etiquette, and I certainly wouldn't want to call them activists; that said, I'd ask you to consider at least the following diffs when you evaluate this claim.

Horse Eye Jack: [73] [74] [75]

Bloodofox: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

tell me Bstephens393... Why did you come out of a seven year retirement in May? I notice that since then you've contributed almost exclusively on FG pages and pushed a very pro-FG POV. While you had touched heavily on FG and FG related topics in your previous decade as an editor it didn't make up the vast majority of your edits, what changed? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Show me one single edit where I have "pushed a very pro-FG POV." I have never been "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG". Please give me the diffs right now. I have not edited the article at all during these debates, and on the talk page I have mainly insisted that all parties engage in civil discussion and collaborative editing. As for my personal PhD hiatus and why I decided to come back now, that has nothing to do with the question at hand. If you really want to know, I have a broader interest in China's current expansionism in HK because of close academic connections, and this is a related hot topic I've been closely watching. My original intent was to leave one comment on the talk page and move on. Quickly I noticed that some of the editors had absolutely no interest in good faith discussion, and I cannot rule out the suspicion that this may be partially related to the current geopolitical events. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The first edit you made in nearly a decade suffices [84]. Is there a reason you have made no edits related to Hong Kong or China since returning to Wikipedia? Besides for small edits at Alexandre Gallo, Gruber Collection, and Saturn (alligator) you have only edited the FG talk page and contributed to related noticeboard discussions. You appear to be a single issue editor since your return, I’m as far as you can get from being a single issue editor here... Less than 1% of my edits are FG related. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Anybody can see that the diff you provided has nothing to do with "pushing a very pro-FG POV", or even a "pro-FG POV." It is a commentary on the NRM label (which I supported) and appropriate contextualization based on WP:RS. Stop your ad hominem attacks. The fact that I've written about a dozen comments on the article's talk page over the last few weeks -- and haven't edited the article even once -- is obvious to anyone. As soon as the academic year ends for my graduate students, I will have a lot more time to focus on this and other topics. Let me remind you that your activism and edit warring are not assuaged by your contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. They do not buy you a carte blanche for bad faith editing. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Aspersions you’re gonna need to provide evidence of “activism,” “edit warring,” and “bad faith editing.” If you make baseless accusations as you do here its a WP:PA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way I think you miscounted your edits, you’ve made a dozen edits of FG related noticeboard posts... On the FG talk page you’ve made more than two dozen edits since coming out of retirement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not count minor revisions of existing comments (including syntactic or grammatical changes and rephrasing) as separate comments. As for activism, edit warring and bad faith editing, I have provided the diffs above, and I could list a number of well-expressed, legitimate and recent concerns that were raised but never properly addressed on the article's talk page. However, this is not the place for that discussion. Bstephens393 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Hardomin2 reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: No 3RR violation, both editors warned about copyvio)

Page

Abu'l Tayyeb Tabari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hardomin2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Stopeedddd / Copied text was deleted. you see?!!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC) to 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 08:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{copyvio}} templates on Abu'l Tayyeb Tabari. (TW)"
2. 08:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Abu'l Tayyeb Tabari. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User does not understand that he is not allowed to remove the Copyvio Tag itself, I explained it now 4 times to user. Perhaps needs a pause. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:CommanderWaterford Insult and violence

The CommanderWaterford, Although the text has been corrected, but it insists on insulting and attacking. This behavior the user, is not correct. Hardomin2 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:26, 6 June 2020

• No violation. Hardomin2, please take great care not to copy from non-free external sources; CommanderWaterford, please be careful not to restore a copvyio to a page under any circumstances – if in doubt, please just leave it out. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Evelynkwapong539 reported by User:Ed6767 (Result: )

Page

Looney Tunes Cartoons (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Evelynkwapong539 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC) to 15:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961089014 by Noelephant (talk) Thought I’d improve it."
   2. 15:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Format */"
2. 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961087271 by 2600:1700:E140:A330:2D87:5A36:4FC1:D5DA (talk) I created most of the articles relating to Looney Tunes Cartoons, so I have an advantage! P.S: Is your user name Noelephant?"
3. 11:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960971608 by 2600:1012:B10B:5CA3:35FD:2DA4:6B47:CADB (talk) Sorry, Noelephant, but it is the only way."
4. 22:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC) "Evelynkwapong539 moved page Looney Tunes Cartoons (batch 1) to Looney Tunes Cartoons (season 1) over redirect: Some other editor wanted me to change it back, big whiner!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Generic warning (for template series missing level 4) (RedWarn rev12)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)

Comments:

also Noelephant, but less prevalent. No dispute resolution attempts, and perhaps WP:CIVIL issues per edit summaries Ed6767 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a discussion on the talk page here before seeing this report... @Ed6767: the other user involved in this mostly seems to be the IP; unless they're the same person as @Noelephant:. But undoubtedly this is a 3RR violation; though if both editors engage on the talk page as I suggested this might not be necessary (after all, WP isn't a bureaucracy and if both editors stop breaking the rules there's no reason to block, which is only a last resort...) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I agree. A block should only be to stop disruptive editing and reported user has made significant constructive contributions - but despite three warnings, they are still engaging in the edit war and seem to think they own the page or have some sort of advantage over a newcomer, which could also be against WP:BITE. If reported remained WP:CIVIL and didn't try the whole "better than you" deal and saught resolution, I would've not opened this thread. But at the moment, the only interaction that has happened is through edit summaries boiling down to "I'm right and you're wrong". Ed6767 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: I don't disagree with your assessment, I just note that they don't appear to have made any new reverts since we both warned them so I guess a short wait-and-see is in order. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, they haven't communicated on any talk page so far and further disputed edits have not been met with any explanation anywhere... Could anybody also explain to me what part of "low resolution" is not clear (and fix that file, while we're talking about it...)? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:30B1:3A00:403D:9845:E63A:148D reported by User:Meticulo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alaska Baseball League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7F:30B1:3A00:403D:9845:E63A:148D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]
6. [91]

Vandalism warnings: User_talk:2A02:C7F:30B1:3A00:403D:9845:E63A:148D

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not applicable. User has received multiple vandalism warnings.

Comments: please forgive any formatting errors - this is my first attempt at reporting edit warring. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Already blocked for mundane vandalism. @Meticulo: You should consider using Twinkle or RedWarn in the future when fighting vandalism. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Spencer for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:USaamo reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (result:)

Page: Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Adds his own] WP:OR then edit wars over it by reverting everyone... see WP:1AM and WP:OWN:

1. 12:53, 04 May 2020 (+192) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 954648077 by Kautilya3 (talk) This evident from neutral sources as well from Indian sources as per losses incurred. Moreover the main article of this war mentions India's upper hand with referring to the Assessment of losses so I've added it the same way.)
2. 13:49, 05 May 2020 . . (+192) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 954816825 by Kautilya3 (talk) Edits reverted without having any reasonable ground. The sources about losses and all the claims are well referenced in the article from where edge is clearly evident. So the said reversion amounts to WP:EDITWAR and WP:TWABUSE. Don't change it without providing a reasonable ground or counter information.)
3. 00:38, 08 May 2020 (+96) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 955373353 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) Discussion is ongoing, do not remove it before it ends!)
4. 12:51, 14 May 2020 (+160) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 956581397 by Field Marshal Aryan (talk) WP:SQS The point is well referenced, discussion is started by other editors who are refuting whether the sources mentioning of Pakistan's edge are on merit or not.)
5. 15:02, 05 June 2020 (+305) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 960701978 by Trojanishere (talk) Discussion about victor and whether it should be mentioned or not is ongoing on talkpage, it's just the mention of edge as per the said sources. And it's not about declaring victory in 1965 war as per losses, all those war analogies you said may apply to the main 1965 war page but it's a sub page about aerial battle which merits this mention!)
6. 18:44, 06 June 2020 . . (+305) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 960906275 by Trojanishere (talk) Do not remove sourced content WP:SQS.)

Edit warring on main page wasn't enough and he started to engage in WP:LAME edit war on talk page too:-

1. 13:40, 5 June 2020‎ -2,695‎ Reverted to revision 956799269 by USaamo: Reinstating as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44/Archive, no evidence was found for sockpuppetry as to it. It was premature to remove it, User:Field Marshal Aryan did it in haste.
2. 18:33, 6 June 2020‎ +738‎ Undid revision 960933152 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) That other filing needs to be specfied as the one used to remove the comment was closed with no evidence of sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NomanPK44

Even though he absolutely know that this comment was made by a sock per SPI.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:
There seems to be a combination of WP:CIR, WP:OWN and WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by User:USaamo
It all started with edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 when I edited it to add assessment of losses and edge as per the pattern of main article of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 which mentioned the upper hand of a party as per assessment of losses. [94] [95] It got reverted by User:Kautilya3 and was asked to add sources, though already cited neutral sources have a mention of it. So I added another neutral source [96] but it also got reverted and they started an all out edit war with different users like this User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Field Marshal Aryan and User:Trojanishere coming and reverting my edits and calling the sources to be non reputable. The said source was refuted by them but no reasonable ground or rebuttal was given. We had a detailed discussion about these sources on article's talkpage and I went on to quote some more sources from international media, authors and journals but they termed it all rhetoric even though many were verifiable. The page's revision history has all it that how many times these guys reverted my edits and I also reverted their edits during this time but initially they started it and kept doing it. [97]

As to edit war on talkpage RfC, I added back a comment removed by them but I got confused between the two filings and just looked on the findings at the end of page all the times considering it a single filing on the page, it was an honest mistake. I see the finding was WP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that case WP:DUCK#Usage WP:MEATPUPPET.

There has been no violation of 3RR from my side and edit warring did happened but started by them and all these editors were involved in it with me. I have no intention to make Wikipedia a battleground and the said edit was only meant to improve the content and neutrality of the article and previously had no such disputes while these editors usually indulge in editing controversial pages concerning India Pakistan history and propagate their narratives by pushing their POV and stonewalling anything coming against it making Wikipedia a battleground which is against it's policies of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND WP:Stonewalling WP:NPOV. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Truth Vindicator reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

Page

Elijah Cummings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Truth Vindicator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Electoral history */The name of the party affiliation is DEMOCRAT and not DEMOCRATIC you ignoramus."
2. 13:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "Democrat not Democratic"
3. 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Electoral history */His party affiliation is DEMOCRAT party. Not DEMOCRATIC party."
4. 13:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "Corrected party affiliation from Democratic to Democrat which is the correct and accurate name of the party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Democratic party == Please read the talk page discussion and others edit summaries as you are edit warring across multiple articles. If you reinstate these ch...'"
2. 13:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 13:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elijah Cummings. (TW)"
4. 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Democrat vs. Democratic */ new section"

Comments:

This has been discussed extensively on various talk pages and even an RFD which I linked on their talk page. They have not engaged in a single discussion. Also common sense would indicate this considering the version they're restoring to is a redirect Democrat Party (United States) to Democratic Party (United States). Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Democrat Party" is an epithet. We have a page on it: Democrat Party (epithet). I'd suggest this editor is WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu given edits like this I'd agree. Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)