Page: Central Province, Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A.Savin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Central Province, Sri Lanka]

Comments:
This editor has previously been advised of potential edit-warring in respect to Galle Lighthouse (refer:User talk:A.Savin#February 2020) and then subsequently at Pidurutalagala (see:User talk:A.Savin#June 2020). Noting that he has removed other 3RRR warnings from his talk page [7] in May 2020 referring to issues on Ravana Falls and Demodara railway station.

He has previously been advised on a ANI that "ask that in future if you are reverted, you go directly to the talk page rather than reinstating." He has been advised of WP:BRD however has chosen to ignore this advice and repeatedly reinstates his own images on this article, despite the fact that a number of editors have posted on the talk page that they disagree with the inclusion of his images. Dan arndt (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sick and tired of this ongoing harassment by "Dan arndt". Why don't they just leave me alone and let me do my job? --A.Savin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan arndt" is assuming bad faith of me, is monitoring all my edits and reverting most of them for hard-to-understand reasons, or even without any explanation at all. Is there not a single admin out there, who don't find this behaviour normal? I am clearly a good-faith contributor, who has been in Wikimedia movement for 15 years, and this hostile and arrogant behaviour makes me ill. --A.Savin (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:A.Savin often engages in edit wars to restore his own images to articles. (See his talk page). But this time around he also restored his own picture to the article four times in 36 hours. (First time, 13:13 on the 12th, through the fourth time, 21:55 on the 13th). He might avoid a block if he will promise to make no more reverts on this article without first getting agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoping that somethng can be worked out on A.Savin's talk page to settle the long-running dispute about images, mostly between Savin and User:Dan arndt. There have been ANI discussions here and here. These two editors continue to clash in multiple places, and admins are unlikely to allow this pattern to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation However, there appears to be a long-term issue with A.Savin's behaviour. The suggestion that A.Savin is prohibited from reverting their own pictures back into articles seems a sensible way forward. Number 57 10:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [13] Comments:

I see no attempt to discuss this before the report, nor a warning to the reported user for 3RR. Further, the reporting editor themselves is at three reverts. Finally, the reported editor has not breached the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, how do I persuade him to stop?.Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: You engage in discussion on the talk page and explain why the images improve the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's so straightforward, thank you. This editor does not notice these things. The article is about the item(s) in the image(s). How further can you go? Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: That's a content matter. You should discuss that at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're at it, here's where Qwirkle keeps reverting my case fixes in spite of my attempts to discuss:

• 13 June
• 13 June
• 14 June

Not quite a 3RR violation, but a difficult behavior to work with, especially when tag-teaming with another reverter. See attempts to discuss at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#MOS:CAPS and Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization. I guess as a "semi-retired" wikipedian he only has enough time for reverts, and has no use for guidelines or serious discussion. I haven't given him a 3RR warning, as these weren't within 24 hours. He has engaged a bit at the conversation, with a few personal attacks, unlike Pi... who merely posted personal attacks and told me to go away. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 3 days. I suggest the editors might try to work through their issues one at a time on the talk page. You could use WP:DRN if no agreement can be reached. If User:Eddaido continues to make personal attacks such as using the word 'lies', in an edit summary, they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I think if you look at the talk page and the article you'll see evidence of good collaboration and progress. Some disagreements still, but not what I'd call edit warring. The article has picked up a lot of new material, images, sources, structure. Your block will impede progress, nor prevent warring. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Eddaido's last edit summary expresses great displeasure (at 05:59 on 18 June). If Eddaido has changed their mind and now shares your opinion about 'good collaboration and progress' I'll lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdJohnston: I don't think that Dicklyon is part of the Eddaido/Qwirkle problem. Dicklyon is GF and will talk to either of them. Sammy D III (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Eddaido is unhappy, and his edits still get reverted. But the rest of us are making progress, with lots of edits since that revert, and a general agreement on what the article is about, which Eddaido hasn't really accepted yet. I have my problems with Qwirkle, but he knows what he's talking about, and I'm working to convince Eddaido while improving the article and trying to mediate a bit. The root of the problem is that Eddaido tried to make the article into a different topic than it has ever been, and Qwirkle was a bit brusk and elliptic in his revert summaries. But I think we're way past that, and Eddaido can come along if he like, or he can keep pushing his idiosyncratic direction, which is disruptive. But he hasn't been pushing much, compared to the constructive work there. Sammy D III is trying to help, too, but also has difficulty with Qwirkle's style; that's not edit warring. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to say I'm around and very much interested in events. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please respond to the ping at the bottom of the talk section Talk:Artillery_wheel#RESTART_—_topic_is_Artillery_wheels, or we'll have to conclude that you're ignoring the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very deliberately ignoring that discussion. Last time I looked there seemed to be progress so I've deliberately stayed away from there and apart from stating the very obvious: An artillery (large-calibre guns used in warfare on land-Google) wheel was specially designed in the Middle Ages to try to cope with the very heavy loads represented by artillery. Really heavy stuff I believe went on rollers over a period of months. More recently variants of those designs have been used for motor vehicles. These are artillery wheels for motor vehicles, artillery wheels for short? Not real artillery wheels - I suggested separate articles but they could be separate sections. Need I say more as to why I will stay out of contributions on that page. As I said, last time I looked you seemed to be leading the pack towards the correct conclusion. Best I do not participate until you reach a conclusion. By the way there remain gross terminological inexactitudes in captions. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I want to add: so far as I'm concerned you've stopped what might have become another disaster: Eddaido (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages:

• 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to (first page this change was made on): [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]
9. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [26]

Comments:

This editor changed Biden's portrait, which there is a consensus for, on all four of these pages repeatedly, despite reverts from multiple editors. This editor did engage with me some on the article talk page, their talk page, and my talk page, on which I calmly explained the present consensus, complete with links to relevant past discussions. However, they ignored my warnings and continued to make the change repeatedly across multiple days. They also repeatedly used hostile language, including calling the consensus picture "FUGLY," referring to me as "the kid," and leaving a profane message on my talk page stating that "The picture was changed from a deliberately F*ng uglly picture to make him look bad." The consensus picture had stood for quite some time, so it's unclear what the editor is referring to. The editor first reverted my revert of their edit on June 12th. It is now the 16th and they have not stopped. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ON the contrary, it was User talk:Tartan357 who was doing the edit warring, as there was no consensus for the picture in question, and in fact, I have been trying to revert that ugly picture for months now. In other words it's TARTAN357 who is at fault here and it is he who should be sanctioned. Calmly explaining something that clearly isn't true is true doesn't help matters, in fact, just shows arrogance on his/her part. i had in fact, first reverted the picture to a better one well before that, in March, IIRC. An apology to myself would be nice.

I am doing nothing but trying to improve the articles in question. Many of which I myself created. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs) can be blocked for repeatedly putting back a photo of Biden that does not have support from others. I could not find any recent discussion that showed agreement on a single photo, but Arglebargle is being reverted by at least three different people (User:David O. Johnson, User:Tartan357 and User:TDKR Chicago 101), which suggests he does not have consensus. Arglebargle79 may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more changes to Biden photos until clear agreement is reached on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(The named user quoted a message I had already left at User talk:Arglebarge79 EdJohnston (talk)).

As I wish to continue to edit and improve the series of articles, I make that promise. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action, since User:Arglebargle79 has agreed to leave the pictures alone until a talk page consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Éowyn */ it's irrelevant"
2. 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 18:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 15:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Éowyn. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has immediately returned from block to continue removal of cited content.

History shows the same edits being made by similar IPs GimliDotNet (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page semiprotected one year. For many weeks a variety of IPs have been taking out a paragraph about Éowyn's feminist credentials in the same way. Previously the page had a year of PC protection but the same reverts are going on steadily in spite of that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "It is relevant."
2. 05:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962140014 by Austronesier (talk) Not irrelevant. You are the warring party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

No violation of 3RR, but persistent edit warring in Sumatra (earlier diffs: [27], [28], [29]), Java, Andaman and Nicobar Islands ([30], [31], [32]). No vandalism, IP looks like acting in good faith, but multiple editors disagree and revert.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Warning was given here: User talk:113.197.13.138#Java and Sumatra. – Austronesier (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Most likely the same editor as 2001:44B8:802:1100:BD39:BF3D:4E16:FEF0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who did similar edits (e.g. in Andaman and Nicobar Islands: [33], [34], [35]) before. –Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all of the IP's are warring in nature. Doesn't use talk page as requested. ON Java has now had 5 separate editors revert their same edit. Uncivil edit summaries. I could provide diffs, but it's easily seen in their contribs. There's not much else in their contribs apart from revert warring to get their way. --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours. Repeatedly adding the one line about Christmas Island to the Sumatra article, in spite of its removal by others as irrelevant trivia. Whenthe IP did make his one post on a talk page it was a promise to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Indro Montanelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vale.devin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)79.66.214.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Special:Diff/961454814/962206662

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/963070959/963073630
2. Special:Diff/963055844/963065556
3. Special:Diff/963036198/963052582
4. Special:Diff/962919521/962941620
5. Special:Diff/962867571/962893615
6. Special:Diff/962723854/962739792
7. Special:Diff/962690481/962702710
8. Special:Diff/962606021/962652221
9. Special:Diff/962573084/962576163
10. Special:Diff/962555029/962559955
11. Special:Diff/962509170/962516169
12. Special:Diff/962292966/962353485
13. Special:Diff/962241305/962246431
14. Special:Diff/962212079/962217272

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_Talk:79.66.214.44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Indro_Montanelli#Persistent_reverts

It is fairly clear to me that the user Haltendehand's behaviour to delete relevant facts (in light of current relevant news discussion) and reverting edits to the page of Indro Montanelli to push his narrative is unacceptable to Wikipedia ethics. He didn't engage and pushed his narrative. Haltendehand has deleted 'controversial' paragraphs in the biography of the famous journalist, that have been clearly sourced, but he deleted them. Vale.devin (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to that I would say that 1. I have not removed any facts from the article, merely moved details about the subject's actions in his youth to the appropriate section and 2. More importantly, as the revision history shows, I am far from the first person to try to do this. Yet every time this is attempted by anyone, User:Vale.devin simply reverts it, and has until now refused to engage in a conversation about this Haltendehand (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
It seems fairly clear to me that this user's behaviour in consistently reverting edits by anyone who tries to remove or amend the clearly inappropriate paragraph in the intro is unacceptable. He has not engaged either on his user talk page or in the discussion page of the article. For reference, it seems entirely clear to me that User:79.66.214.44 is the same person as User:Vale.devin. I also do not deny that I might be at least in part at fault for the edit war. Apologies incidentally if I have made any mistakes in this form or forgot to add something. Haltendehand (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haltendehand, the other user switched their username with yours, in this edit here: [36].David O. Johnson (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 2 days. Please use this time to negotiate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David O. Johnson, thank you. I corrected it without looking at the revision history, thinking I'd made a mistake when entering the data into the form. If it happens again I'll avoid correcting it so as not to cause what would be rather an ironic edit war

Page: Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.132.148.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
This is a relatively trivial issue, to do with the capitalization of a section heading, but the editor has been aggressively continuing to edit war despite the efforts of myself and another editor to persuade them that their edits are contrary to guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Five reverts of the capitalization of k.d. lang since 8 June. The IP has shown WP:IDHT and made personal attacks on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sealioning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.133.196.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before they arrived: [45]

Their original edit: [46] (attempting to whitewash the article with unsourced fabrications)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Comments:
I'd try hashing this out at the Talk page, but with the IP already making accusations of conspiracy and demanding to see a manager, I doubt it would be productive. (Courtesy ping of Britishfinance, who has also reverted the IP.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP accused me of a 3RR violation on my first revert of their disruptive edit, and that they would report me to ArbCom (clearly not a first time editor to WP). Britishfinance (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies to the number of reverts, not your personal total. This is to prevent brigading such as you and your fellow editor seem to be doing. You can't phone a friend here. Now, if I may ask you a question; in what way is asking questions to stimulate discussion NOT the Socratic Method? I linked to Socratic Method which I assume you read. As I said on your talk page, I asked Jimbo a few years ago about the webcomic that inspired the meme, and he said the white woman who expressed hate for sealions was a racist. It's a very fair analysis, I am sure you would agree. There is nothing impolite about asking her why she is prejudiced against sealions. I awaiy our reply. 173.133.196.181 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This administrator is unconvinced that Britishfinance was canvassed or otherwise called in to the article in an untoward manner. Even if we were to combine the edits of Britishfinance and XOR'easter, Britishfinance's revert would only be the second. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reach out to contact Britishfinance in any way (until the courtesy ping I made just above). I presume that Britishfinance simply has the article watchlisted, as I do. Sealioning is, by definition, not asking questions to stimulate discussion. "Jimbo's" opinion is irrelevant, as was actually established by a full RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – None of the three editors mentioned in this report has broken WP:3RR. For a brand-new editor the IP does seem precocious, when they allege canvassing and suggest a referral to Arbcom on their fourth edit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58][59]

Comments:

This user is edit warring. I have showed good faith and started a discussion on the talk page but the users is acting in bad faith by reverting back, on and on. This leads to nowhere and makes any civil discussion and editing Wikipedia impossible. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content which was WP:OR and/or WP:UNDUE, requesting that Tuvixer not restore it without consensus according to WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") Neither of us violated 3RR. The page is now fully protected so I advise that Tuvixer use the talk page to discuss the inclusion of the content and that this report be closed with no action. buidhe 08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe has violated the 3RR and engaged in edit warring. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation Buidhe has not violated 3RR as the first three edits above are not reverts. As the article is already protected, no action is required here. However I think Peacemaker67 should restore the pre-edit war version of the article – a version achieved by edit warring shouldn't be allowed to stand. Cheers, Number 57 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone always thinks the "wrong version" has been locked. The key is resolving the issue, not what it looks like for a few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stable version is almost always the correct version in cases like this. And while I agree resolving the issue is key, it is also important not to reward the party ignoring WP:BRD or make the party who was following BRD feel highly aggrieved by allowing the B version to stand, as this may encourage both parties to edit war to get their way in future. So, while this is resolved, please restore the stable version. Thanks, Number 57 09:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 and Number 57 I have reverted edits made by Buidhe and I have started a discussion, but Buidhe engages in edit warring and on the talk page claims that I should prove a negative when instead it is she/he who needs to explain why the removal of sourced content is warranted. So when a user shows a clear bad faith, like what Buidhe is doing now, how is a resolution possible? Also isn't a basic rule of Wikipedia that when someone reverts edits that you made that you do not revert them back? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic behavioural expectation, yes. Hence why the stable version should be restored pending any agreement on the talk page. Number 57 09:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvixer, Please stop accusing me of bad faith editing without evidence. WP:Personal attacks are not allowed. buidhe 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "We need to go back to the stable version so stop your pov pushing if you want a discussion."
2. 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "The information came from the book "costume et parure du Maroc" de Rachida Alaoui. So you can't call the source unreliable."
3. 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Another POV of M.Bitton"
4. 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "I don't see why specifying the year of issue is a POV. Your POV is trying to hide information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Section: Talk:Kaftan#June_2020

Twinkle didn't pick the above up automatically because I'm not an involved user.

Comments:

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) has previously warned the user on their talk page of 3RR violations. Whilst they themselves have come close to a 3RR breach on the same page, as of writing this they've not broken 3RR, whereas SegoviaKazar has. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. As the admin who had recently fully-protected the page, I take a dim view of SegoviaKazar having abandoned the discussion, even though I'm not sure 3RR has actually been breached here (the Previous version reverted to parameter has been left blank in this report). El_C 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nuh, sorry, Twinkle doesn't like you reporting to AN3 when you're not personally involved in the dispute, it seems - will file a bug report. If you look at the diffs, they've just been reverting everything the other user does, pretty much - they've not reverted one specific thing more than three times, but per WP:3RR, it doesn't need to be the same content. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disputing that. It's just not clear from your report whether the earliest diff constitutes a revert or just a bold edit. El_C 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: Ah, fair. It is a revert: check this diff to see the previous reversion by M.Bitton. The original edit is this one. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Naypta. That settles that. El_C 13:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Naypta and El C for saving me a trip to ANI, as I've just about had enough with them casting aspersions (something they have already been asked to refrain from doing) and edit warring while dodging the concerns raised on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Dhola, Tibet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:57, 18 June 2020 at Dhola Post "(Manual revert to 13:31, 18 June 2020.)"
2. 3 separate edits ending at 13:31, 18 June 2020 at Dhola Post: "(Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line.)"
3. 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Addressing clarifications."
4. 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Undid revision 963110743 by Kautilya3 (talk) Consensus was not reached on the talk page."
5. 18:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Undid revision 963082813 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
6. 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dhola Post. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Kautilya3 moved page Talk:Dhola Post to Talk:Dhola, Tibet over redirect: Reverting to the original title"

Comments:

This is a bit of a tricky situation. Several months ago I found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which I expanded and renamed to "Dhola Post". The user complained about it yesterday saying that it was an undiscussed move. I conceded, set the page back to what it was, and created a new page on Dhola Post. However, the user continues to edit war at the new page as well, over the same content

The user also removed citation needed tags without actually providing citations.

Discussions took place at the article's talk page as well as the user's talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I continue "to edit war at the new page as well, over the same content" is plainly false. I have not changed your newly created page on Dhola Post to match the existing page of Dhola, Tibet. Instead,

* I removed discussion in the "Location and background" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the main point that the Thagla Ridge is north of the McMahon Line, but India believes the watershed principle implies Thagla Ridge is itself the border;

* I deleted a map that was created entirely by you and thus constitutes WP:NOR;

* and I removed discussion in the "Establishment" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the doubts from Captain Prasad, Maj. Gen. Prasad, and Lt. Gen. Singh on whether Dhola was "properly Indian."

I don't see the logic in being accused of edit warring when you made 3 reverts of my changes within 8 minutes (much less 24 hours).Erik-the-red (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I have done a maximum of 3 "reverts", where some of the reverts may have been done in several successive edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you did. 2 of your 6 alleged "reverts" are not reverts at all. [[WP:REVERT] refers to "undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version."

You erroneously labeled 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC) as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I substantially rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source with sufficient documentation (Henderson Brooks-Bhagat) and deleted sources you claimed to be unreliable (Calvin) or insufficiently documented (Maxwell). Because I rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source, there was no "restoration to a previous version."

You also erroneously labeled [60] as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I made the changes for the first time. There was no previous version from which those changes already existed.

The other 4 are reverts, although I must note that the 13:57, 18 June 2020 applies to a different article than the other 3. So you've accused me of edit warring because I made 3 reverts to Dhola, Tibet and 1 revert to Dhola Post.Erik-the-red (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are trying to game the system by arguing technicalities. The fact remains that you make no effort to seek CONSENSUS, and insist on your version of the contents being paramount. By your own admission you have made "4 reverts" despite receiving a 3RR warning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I make no effort to seek consensus is false. As you yourself admitted in your complaint, "discussions took place at the article's talk page as well as the user's talk page." Anyone can check and see that I initiated a discussion with you on the Dhola, Tibet talk page at 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC), while you chose to "warn" me on my talk page at 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

As for "arguing technicalities," that is your specialty, evidenced by your attempt to now argue that I've violated the 3RR because I made 3 reverts on Dhola, Tibet and 1 on Dhola Post. The 3RR applies to "a single page," and as you yourself know, Dhola, Tibet and Dhola Post are two different pages because you created Dhola Post.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 3 days. If agreement can't be reached, please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Buffalo police shoving incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gu64rk g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963212460 by Arms & Hearts (talk) Happy to remove this after a discussion but I don't think it is right to remove it before. I have opened a discussion but nobody has discussed this as part of the 'Edit warring' page - 'Disagreements should be resolved through discussion'"
2. 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963208543 by Arms & Hearts (talk)"
3. 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Close up video of Gugino has been added (with more impartial commentary)"
4. 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963201496 by Arms & Hearts (talk) The gif provides valid information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buffalo police shoving incident */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

So far no discussion, apart from the one I have initiated in the talk section, arguing why the animated gif should be removed. I believe strongly the gif is a key part of this story.Gu64rk g (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, so I won't take action, but this editor's early edits appear to have been an attempt to promote conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked before I saw this. The edit was, among other things, copyright infringement; reverting it doesn't make you involved. —Cryptic 15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Oliver the Great Western Engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Ownership of articles (RedWarn rev14)"
2. 22:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Ownership of articles (RedWarn rev14)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on multiple pages. TuskDeer (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps adding inappropriate edit summaries unrelated to their contributions in all caps, without any sources. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked - 1 month by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Victoria Vetri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundayclose (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 user talk page: [67]

Comments:
Sundayclose disagrees on the application of Wikipedia:FREER, on this image, File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg. However, I uploaded the image in good faith. First, the image gets tagged for speedy deletion, okay. Second, Sunday close then issues me a warning.

I am somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of this users actions, in this edit they threatened to block me again and cited WP:SUICIDE. WTH? --evrik ^(talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those reverts were removal of a copyright violation, which as I understand it does not violate 3RR; I reverted an image from the cover of Playboy magazine of a living Playboy Playmate and notable actress, a violation of WP:FREER. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if it were clear that the image was coyvio, you tagged my talk page twice, reverted and edit when I was adding sources, refused to take this to IFD, and went a little overboard when you placed WP:SUICIDE on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 03:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sundayclose: Taking a deep breath. If you restore the image and take the discussion to an IFD, I will agree to withdraw this complaint. Cheers. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: No. Copyright violation is not a matter of negotiation. I trust admins on this board to make a decision about whether removal of copyrighted images is edit warring. I don't trust you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay then. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Kurdish dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frat070699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]
7. [75]
8. [76]
9. [77]
10. [78]
11. [79]
12. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] and was warned before by another user [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments:
The reported user has started editing List of Kurdish dynasties and countries since 9 May 2020[84] and his edits has become disruptive on the mentioned article. POV-pushing, false and misleading edit summaries, ignoring other editors' points, WP:OWN, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. They opened a section on talk page but refused to collaborate, dropping their stick, and continued edit warring and non-stop reverts and removals of content added by other editors. Please take a look at both revision history and Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries to see edit warring pattern of them. Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked from List of Kurdish dynasties and countries – for a period of two weeks However, it does look like Frat070699 is an SPA only on Wikipedia to push a certain viewpoint on Kurdish history. If this behaviour continues at other articles or restarts on this article when the block expires, a site-wide block may be more appropriate Number 57 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963290437

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963313779
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314185
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314714
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963315555
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963316068

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

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

Comments:

• I have reverted the edits because the user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:WowWashington; they are under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewserbs. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-admin comment) Reporter appears to have COI issues, serious SPA issues, and likely sockpuppet issues (sprung into existence knowing what that even was). Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Passengerpigeon has an exemption from 3RR for good-faith reverts of apparent vandalism and/or block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Page protected
  Additionally, Danielreitberg has been blocked based on this comment, which indicates that he is not who the username asserts him to be. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Bob's Burgers: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gatitoamr1299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 09:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 06:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
2. 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also editing warring while logged out as Special:Contributions/2605:E000:121E:802F::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP was blocked yesterday by somebody else. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sands Atlantic City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melody Concerto (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. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Four reverts in 8 minutes including two without any explanation. User also attempted to start an edit war on my talk page. [90]66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons were provided after sufficient reverts. IP user did not engage via talk; only began reverting. Assumed vandalism; warned and mitigated lack of reason fields in later reversions. ♥ Melody ♥ 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't excuse the fact that you've broke 3RR by edit warring for a reason that wasn't part of WP:3RRNO nor does it excuse the fact that you've disregarded WP:BLANKING. And if you've "assumed vandalism" despite the initial edit summary I left, then you do not even deserve to have the rollback tool because you obviously don't know what constitute vandalism.: 66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected by someone else already. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

2020 China–India skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "Those figures are of injured. Not casualties (which includes seriously injured and deaths only). So those numbers include very minor injuries too. And such info about Chinese side isn't available. So, it would distort the info box to make it appear as if injuries are only from one side. Moreover, in all military history pages only seriously wounded are mentioned. Not all the minor ones."
2. 06:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox"
3. 04:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox."
4. 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "Casualties itself means both deaths and seriously injured. This has been discussed at the Talk page already. So no need to use the term 'dead and seriously injured' again."
5. 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963180580 by 嘉傑 (talk) These details are unnecessary. Please do not make the Page bulky by adding such details. One can know who he is by simply hovering over his name as there is already a wikipedia page and this link has been added."
6. 10:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963179524 by 嘉傑 (talk) Paramount? Isn't he the president."
7. 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "This is better as casualties itself includes both deaths and seriously injured"
8. 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "As per the citation it includes deaths and seriously injured not deaths and injured."
9. 04:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963149439 by 葉又嘉 (talk) Please do not keep doing this. You will be reported. Pakistani claims do not merit a place here. The conflict is between China and India."
10. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) to 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    1. 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Why was this removed??"
    2. 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Very necessary to mention the source to be american."
11. 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Please do not make such edits in the casualties section."
12. 18:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963084026 by Wped87 (talk) Serious injuries are being mentioned. And the numbers have to be comparative. There are no numbers on Chinese injured. There is figure only on killed or seriously injured. Please discuss at the Talk Page before making such major edits. Further the dates earlier were correct."
13. 18:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963080653 by Greatvictor999 (talk) It has already been discussed in the talk page and consensus has been reached to use the word 'casualties'. Casualties itself means dead or serious injury so no need to mention it again."
14. 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963065909 by Mr.User200 (talk) See this : https://twitter.com/PBNS_India/status/1273144011507806209?s=19 . Prasar Bharti is India's national state-run TV channel. So it only tweets after conforming with the government."
15. 16:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "These reports are from 16th June. On 17th Indian Army has officially denied any such captivity news. Today Prasar Bharti also put out a tweet regarding the same. The brief time for which some soldiers were held has already been mentioned in the sub section of Galwan clashes. Please, do not do such edits based on speculations which have already been denied"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 China–India skirmishes. (TW)"
2. 10:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */you’re missing the point"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes#43 'casualties' vs 'killed or injured'
2. Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes#Question regarding Injured Troops
3. 11:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Should we refer to Xi Jinping as 'Paramount Leader' or President in this article. */re"

Comments:

Editor was warned very clearly about 3RR almost 24 hours ago, since they made at least 11 non-consecutive unambiguous reverts in the preceding 24 hours. They’ve now made 4 non-consecutive reverts in the last 6 hours alone and 6 over the last 24 hours. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What this article really needs is WP:ECP due to frequent addition of misinformation by small accounts. That will quell edit wars. Orientls (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trojanishere is warring with established accounts, while the article does need ECP it won’t solve this particular issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My defence:
I am sorry for the multiple reverts but there has been very frequent addition of wrong info from newly created accounts. These edits have been very damaging to the page and as the page in question is an ongoing event, it is being visited in huge numbers. So, in order to maintain Wikipedia's standards I had to do some reverts. Further, the topics on which edits were made were still being discussed at the Talk Page. These accounts without going through the Talk page or participating in it, directly changed info in the infobox. Further, my arguments were backed by citations. Trojanishere (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

Page: 2020–21 Indian Super League season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 6, 7 and again pinging the user 8

Comments: He was warned of edit warring several times and was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing/unsourced repetitive unsourced content addition bahaviour and not adhere with the guidelines. The user seems to haven't understand what edit warring or disruptive editing or importance of reliable sources is as same thing persisted in the article of previous season of the league that is 2019–20 Indian Super League season as had to warned here again try to make them understand of the guideliens here here. Interestingly their first block was exactly for the same reason adding unsourced content. Rather than complying with the guidleines that I've addressed to them at the article talk page they became aggressive here at my talk page threatening me and accusing of indecency or having nasty attitute and bringing my notice to the unreliable sources that I have already mentioned, are not relaible source.

Page: The Last of Us Part II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Apache287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]
6. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments: User was reverted by multiple editors, including me, Wikibenboy94, Guardian101 etc. They are trying to change the review aggregator Metacritic's consensus and score without actually presenting a valid reason and sources.

• Page protected Full-protected by Ymblanter Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user keep adding "transexual" and "transgender" to a such respectful title in Islamic world. I request this user being banned. Beshogur (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Tamil films of 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B103N48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Talk:List of Tamil films of 2020, B103N48, who has well under 200 edits, and thus is not familiar with Wikipedia community policy like WP:CRYSTAL, needed some edification about that policy, which I provided, but they seem to think it is not relevant here. The user believes this wall of poorly-sourced future events about upcoming, unreleased films should be kept, despite at least three other editors thinking that the content should be cut until they can all be substantiated, and some feel that even then, there should be specific release dates before the films are included. In that edit I just linked, B103N45 restored the content yet again, the fourth time they've done this since 14 June 2020, foisting their preference over the opinions of other editors. It would seem to me this is a fairly standard situation--the user can curate this content in their sandbox and find proper sourcing, but unsourced content about future events shouldn't be in there, as it violates policy. But anyway, they seem to be stalwart about warring over this, and it's unclear how many people will be required to comment before they accept a consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I’ve warned them on continued behaviour when editing and placed this edit restriction until there’s evidence of an attempt to discuss consensus and acknowledge their editing issues with a clear view on how they shall proceed to edit constructively. N.J.A. | talk 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]
5. [111]
6. [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114], [115], [116]

Warning left on user's talk page: [117]

Comments:
This user does not believe in collaborative work or discussion and insists on removing reliable, sourced content that goes against their opinions. They are here to push a certain POV agenda. They have been edit-warring in almost every article they are editing. Another example is Al-Malikiyah. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (عمرو بن كلثوم = Nom; Konli17 = K) : K made his/her first edit on 5/26/2020. Nom completely reverted K's edit no less than eight (8) times! One other editor tried to intervene and restored K's edit; Nom reverted that, too. K's original edit: added a citation; removed one sentence, citation and quote; and some minor stuff. It turns out that all of the "kurdwatch" citation URLs are typos, and so they don't lead to the intended source (should be kurdwatch.ezks.org, not kurdwatch.org). I don't know if having a valid citation would have made any difference in K's original edit or not. (K removed content based on one of the faulty URLs.) Nom does not appear to have made any attempts to explain why he/she didn't like K's edits, but has repeatedly insulted K, starting with calling his edit vandalism, then accusing him of "trying to sneak in removal of sourced content under your claimed cleaning/sequence/English summary; your edit summary is simply not true and not innocent", then "I don't care what you think", and "you are making up facts". Despite K asking for any explanation on the points of the edits, Nom never gives any. The disruptive editor doesn't appear to be K. Normal Op (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
What about this, he (k) deleted sourced content about kurdish war crimes. The nom added this back but K keeps delete sourced content to move this to one pov point.

forces were accused of several serious human rights violations. ^[1] Many thousands of the city's Arab residents were forced to leave the city and its area. Surrounding villages such as Bir Ashiq were destroyed and their residents prohibited by YPG from coming back. (he k) just deletes this sourced parts. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Op, It seems that you didn't look closely at the links I provided, here you go again. I am not too worried about the Kurdwatch name typo, I am more concerned about a major Washington Post story K deleted in the bulk of the editing, hence the accusation of sneaking in that deletion of sourced information under the cover of typo fixing and reference formatting, etc. If you consider that an insult, then that's your problem. This shows a consistent, persistent attitude of trying to force their POV on other users, and not being open to listen to the other side. Here is another example from another article. As for your claim that I didn't explain my revert to Konli, here is the link of my first response in the Talk page of the article, and here is the link to my second reply to them. I also left a message to them on their talk page, and left detailed summaries in my edits. What is their response? Absurd, completely opinionated and emotional. Here is an excerpt: "but most Tell Abyad residents seem to have preferred this to being part of the Islamic State." Please read through the Talk page before jumping to conclusions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Did not want to write here but this user keep pushing his own (pro-Kurdish bias) in Turkey related articles, changing Southeastern Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia into Northern Kurdistan, Syria's north into Rojava, etc. Changing wordings, adding text without adding new sources, etc. admins should check his history. Beshogur (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Statue of Albert Pike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Chukkar (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:

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:

He uses wrong statistics and simple news articles without sources for the number of Ingush people, instead of trying to resolve anything or come to any kind of conclusion, he ignores any argument made in the talks page, and goes back to edit and revert any change that has been made which is against his liking.

Page

Nadar (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2409:4072:6D8A:9675:0:0:7A0B:2708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[122]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[123] [124] [125] [126]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[127]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly inserting their own text with no explanation, edit summary etc JW 1961 Talk 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]