Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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

Page: Arianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.65.241.236 (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 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) to 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Still incorrect. Here's another source, again from a Google search: https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
   2. 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
2. 22:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed incorrect claim. Simple Google search reveals it is unitarian not binitarian: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC) to 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 21:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "This is incorrect as not found in the sources cited yet again. Arianism is neither Trinitarian nor binitarian as cited at the top of the paragraph. This change is accurate and will stand."
   2. 21:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "According to sources cited"
   3. 21:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed incorrect claim"
4. 16:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Two things: according to all sources of Arianism used and all modern examples, The Son is not considered to be God the Son, claiming that contradicts the first statement used here with use of 'nontrinitarian'. The first statement is true, second is false. Secondly, all used sources identify Arianism as an ancient Christian heresy, further evidenced by the dates and use of 'nontrinitarian'. Accurate use of sources and transparency was needed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arianism."
2. 22:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Subtle vandalism on Jesse James Keitel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC) "/* I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks the definition is very confusing. Or is it incomplete or what is Arius accused of? */ binitarian"

Comments:

Generally speaking 68.65.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) is a transphobic edit warrior. They think they are smarter than Bart Ehrman. Their interests remind me of someone who got a Foundation Ban , Til Eulenspiegel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Til Eulenspiegel was ferociously against homosexuals, so I guess that translates to transphobia, also. Misgendering transsexuals and non-binary people seems to be a hobby for alt-right trolls and for Christian fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/68.65.0.0/16 is blocked 1 month. I agree with you about the resemblance to User:Til Eulenspiegel but had not heard before about their issues with marking genders for trans people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Haydar Pamuk reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result:Blocked)

Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Haydar Pamuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Review my three sources and comments in talk concerning this entry Undid revision 996408734 by Le Petit Chat (talk)"
2. 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Of course truth matters. You are engaging in revisionism and selective history: no one should be allowed to rewrite history. This is a citation from an academic from Oxford and not from a state-sponsored Azeri source such as yours. Undid revision 996402722 by Solavirum (talk)"
3. 11:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "But this is not an Azeri, nor Armenian, Wikipedia page. It is Wikipedia. In Armenia, it is labelled very differently. Your claim is one-sided and spurious this is why non-partisan, non-state sources like the Washington Post work better. Please stop undoing and undermining the accuracy of non-biased historic information Undid revision 996398961 by Solavirum (talk)"
4. 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Please do not delete well sourced history about Shusha. You include historic demographic data for Azeris prior to the recent war. For balance, you also need to include data for Armenians in the town prior to the massacre. Undid revision 996392607 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
5. 07:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996309963 by CuriousGolden (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, many thanks for your ongoing efforts on this noticeboard. I wonder whether you were aware that CuriousGolden notified Haydar Pamuk about 3RR violation only at 14:40, 26 December 2020 - at the same time when reporting him here at 14:40, 26 December 2020 (does not look like Haydar Pamuk had a chance to reflect on his actions before the block), while making 4 reverts in 24 hours himself - please see my report below. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole talk page of Haydar Pamuk is full of warnings and in fact does not contain anything else. For a user with 14 edits this is not a good Wikipedia start, and they should be happy that they were only blocked for 31 hours. I often block such users indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. While not arguing that there are warnings on his page (although 4 out 5 being by a single user - himself actively reverting) , the 3RR violation warning was given at the same time as reporting him on noticeboard per 3RR, which, to a user with only 14 edits, might not be the kindest approach - he simply might not have been aware of the 3RR, he did not get a warning about 3RR rule before being reported and hence he might not have had a chance to familiarize himself with 3RR and reflect on his activity violating it. He might have made those edits in good faith, as he volunteered to GA review the article. What do you think? Regards Armatura (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I think that the user is not here to built an encyclopedia and must feel happy that tomorrow they can continue editing. Probably not for long though unless they radically change their attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura (Result: )

Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Comments:
Looks like 4 reverts over 24 hours period. No signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shusha_(2020) - GA review . The user is well aware of the 3RR rule as they were previously sanctioned by 2 week abstinence from editing Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and at that point they claimed that they were unaware of the rule but would follow it from now now. Notified about this discussion on personal talk page and on 3RR violation on article talk page. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say that this diff and this diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception in WP:3RR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Just one of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another user Sataralynd to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 NKR-connected articles as reported by another user Գարիկ Ավագյան. This is despite being alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism"). Armatura (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Armatura, did you look carefully at the fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:

There Syrian Jihadists participating in the battle on the Azerbaijani side sent there with weapons after they crossed on foot into Turkish borders. They were sent by Erdogan, where he plotted a plan to settle syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh. It is now a confirmed fact. This article left out everything about the Syrian Jihadists and its a shame they are hiding the fact that Armenia was fight a war against terrorists whom said themselves that the Azerbaijanis stayed at the lines getting drunk while they sent the mercenaries forward to die. If this truth is removed than this article is nothing more than a make believe trophy because all shit floats to the surface one day..

Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source? EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics) , but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Βατο reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)

Page: Apollonia (Illyria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Βατο (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. [1] (revert of [2] and [3])
2. [4] (revert of [5])
3. [6] (revert of [7]
4. [8] (revert of [9])

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

Clear cut 3RR violation. Four reverts in the space of 10 hours. He and his friends will WP:FILIBUSTER this report to turn into tl;dr. But the diffs speak for themselves. The article falls within the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions area. The reverts are particularly disruptive, as they not only remove sourced material, but also misrepresent sources (e.g. here [11] he removes a source (Stocker) and adds a source (Cabanes) that does not support the "joint trading settlement" claim, as explained here [12]). He has received plenty of edit-warring warnings in the recent past [13] [14]. Didn't seem to have done any good. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is not 3rr violation: here I removed {{qn}} tags because the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article; here I fixed a source using the Harv-style reference and I added further sources into the lede. In those two edits, the article's content was not changed. – Βατο (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the {{qn}} tags was not a revert to one of my preferred versions. – Βατο (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. In all 4 diffs, you reversed the actions of other editors and returned the article to a previous state. It doesn't matter if you don't consider them reverts. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you say it's not your "preferred version". It's still a revert. This is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A revert of what? – Βατο (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A revert of this [15]. Don't play obtuse. You know what you did. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This [16] edit is definetly not a revert, Administrators can check it. It's a cite error fix with Harv-style reference. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It definitely is a revert, because you removed the quote ("At Apollonia, these early Greek mariners encountered..."). You're not fooling anyone here. Khirurg (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor. As far as I can see, there is no 3RR breach. In any case, nobody should rush to block Bato who is an established editor with clear block and AE logs. He even did not get warned for edit warring. Instead, I would like to have an admin keep an eye on the article, as it is having many edits and some reverts by several editors. As for the "friends" comment made by the filer, well he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. I suggest everyone focus on improving content rather than on accusations and redundant disagreements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. Khirurg (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bato: It's really sad you pretend that the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article. In fact they are not, to name a few tags you removed: Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97. I assume you need to rephrase your defence in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The updated information of the lede was taken from the article's body referenced with full quotes from the relevant sources that were recently added. The other sources were already included into the lede, no one changed them. – Βατο (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Response to Khirurg.There you were sanctioned as part of a "travelling circus" (an admin's words), not to mention that in the other AE cases you have in your log you were sanctioned together with two other disruptive editors, I pakapshem and ZjarriRrethues. This clarification was needed aa you said you expected "friends" of Bato to come here. I did not come here as a "friend". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no quotes about those reference (Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97... a quick search can confirm this) even in the article's body. @Bato: The placing of a qn tag is a polite way to say that something is needed. But you responded with instant reverts. That's a non-constructive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wilkes, Wilson, Chamoux were already into the lede before its updating with other sources, while the relevant quotes were already included into the article. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Is @Khirurg: seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and particularly disruptive the fact that Bato changed Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria to Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony [17]? The report is also invalid because no warning was ever sent to Bato even about the above "revert". This is the very definition of WP:GAMING 3RR. Khirurg has a history of this. Here's a similar failed report against another editor with whom he was in a dispute [18] for "maxing out 3RR"; he likewise supports another report against an editor he had a dispute with[19]. Noticeboards shouldn't be instrumentalized to win disputes. Now, Khirurg and Alexikoua whose report he recently supported have a total of 4 reverts and Khirurg is attacking other editors even when fixing minor edits ("fixed incompetent editing").

  Alexikoua was recently reported for a crystal clear violation of 3RR which nobody disputed [20]. Khirurg then argued that Alexikoua shouldn't be blocked because of "tagteaming" (not withstanding the fact that constantly they and Alexikoua find themselves on the same side of every dispute I've observed, which shows a much more consistent pattern than the collection of editors he's ever made this claim against). One can see highly representative behavior on that thread: although Khirurg claims the most minor of edits are sanctionable when put forward by editors he disagrees with, when an editor he constantly finds himself on the same side of the aisle is reported for obvious edit-warring, Khirurg barrages the filing editor and others with personal attacks and bewildering claims that they are "motivated by a desire for revenge".

  If we as a community are serious about fixing the problems that are glaringly evident here, the obvious fix is at the very least a reprimand for Khirurg to stop using reports in this manner. But at the very least, the WP:GAMING of noticeboards should stop.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past [21] [22], to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here [23]. Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring (Warn the user if you have not already done so.). Now, I think that you didn't warn Bato because there was nothing to warn him about. Despite your claims that he has been "edit-warring like mad" you are asking from the community to count as a particularly disruptive revert an edit by Bato which changed Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria to Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony [24]. It really highlights the instrumentalization of the report function and the very bad use of community discussions. Editors are reported in order to stop an active disruption. Such minor edits are neither disruptive or worthy of any discussion at ANI. You can't ask for anyone to be blocked or even warned about something like that. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC

There was no 3RR violation and the change of Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria to Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony is not a particularly disruptive edit/revert in any way, shape or form. I don't think that anyone should be blocked about anything if there is no disruption. I'm not even fond of blocks per se. And I am of the opinion that no editor should be dragged through a report which hypes minor edits as something which they're not. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked [25]? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine [26]. The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The one who is guilty of source misuse is Βατο, who in one of the reverts above used a source to make a claim not backed by the source. And it doesn't matter if "you are not fond of blocks". You are not an admin around here. Why are you trying to sound like one? Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Source misuse with original research interpretation is Alexikoua's pattern, not mine. The false statement misrepresented another (Cabanes) highlights your unconstructive pattern in Wikipedia, you haven't even checked the sources. Kyle et al. and McIlvaine et al. are not commenting on Hammond's suggestions, they used them along with Cabanes' and other scholars' proposals to make their own conclusions, it can be easily seen if you read the sources, but for you it is better to WP:CHERRYPICK sources and to add only what you like, ignoring other scholars' considerations. In that specific edit I added further quotes from the sources because Alexikoua used them incorrectly as considering the information supported only by Hammond, when actually it was not the case. Anyway, that is just one of the edits, and it is content dispute that should be discussed in the article's talk page, not here. Returning to this discussion, there is not 3rr violation, one of the presumed reverts was actually a source fix with the use of Harv-style reference. Also I fail to see a warning in my talk page, which clearly shows that there was not edit war. – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria to Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony. As we're getting close to a day after the supposed "disruptive editing" nothing has happened in terms of editing. If there was disruptive editing which required for anyone to be blocked, where is the continued disruption? The fact that you're still trying to put forward a narrative that requires for Bato to be blocked even though nothing has actually happened in my book looks like instrumentalization of the report in order to score points against another editor. Such use of community noticeboards lowers the quality of the project and makes collaboration very difficult.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony to Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria, because even that was too much for him. I made the minor edit, and he reverted it instantly, with the edit summary "not an improvement". What kind of behavior is that? It's clear WP:OWN. Of course he has been lying low since I filed the report. And we both know what will happen if the report is closed as no action: He will immediately resume WP:OWN edit warring. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. WP:DRN might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sweetkind5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36]

1. [37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
Sweetkind5's latest talk page contributions include "I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion...don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits". CMD (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor keeps reverting attempts to return to the status quo ante while the issue is discussed on the Talk page (I have added the latest reversion to the list above) and accuses anyone who attempts to return to the last stable version of the article of being anti-Turkish bigots. He does not wish to discuss the subject matter (and has said so in the Talk page, as CMD pointed out) and does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

More appropriately, the user is tried to fool us more times, since invented various fake reasons to revert, first he stated on the edit log we should discuss on the talk page when already a discussion was opened which he ignored then, another time he claimed he is restoring the original content, which was not the status quo ante version, but the version he pushed. The status quo version is what I reset (and equals with the last stable version as well). The user already breached 3RR earlier, however just because of Christmas I did not report him immediately, but contrary the warnings and discussions, the disruptive editing continued.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Wicked-pedia Editor reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page: List of awards and nominations received by GFriend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wicked-pedia Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
2. 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
3. 14:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 14:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */Calm down your asses."
5. 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
6. 14:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
7. 13:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
8. 13:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
9. 09:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by GFriend."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
2. 12:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply"

Comments:

Hello admins, the editor has been trying to add non-notable awards to the table of awards received by GFriend. They have been warned twice about edit warring, reverted by three different editors: Paper9oll, EN-Jungwon, and myself. I even opened a talk page discussion [40] to discuss and resolve the changes, to which they haven't responded and have continued to behave in the same manner. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Favonian (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User79.52.10.235 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of ongoing armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.52.10.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] plus additional clarification the rule applies to Troubles related content in other articles here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] (at related talk page, referred to discussion in edit summaries)

Comments:
Edits are subject to a 1RR restriction WP:TROUBLES (my revert of the IP are exempt from 1RR). On both reverts they have restored the unreferenced claim three gangland feuds are part of the Dissident Irish republican campaign, the first edit also reverts the 2019 casualties total from 1 back to 3, and the second edit also reverts to add back the incorrect total of 184 deaths which I have explained is incorrect at their talk page, and repeatedly referred them to the explanation at Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign#Casualties. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Related report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona, due to use of D10s Maradona (talk · contribs) sockpuppet to continue edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – One month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona for details. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CSOlson3389 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result:blocked)

Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CSOlson3389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessionally subjective material"
2. 19:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional subjective material"
3. 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional subjective content"
4. 17:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessionally subjective material intended to alter peoples’s perceptions"
5. 03:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "removed unprofessional, subjective material/statements"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Soul (2020 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, the page has been long-term protectedYmblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Shinyedit reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page protected)

Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shinyedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation, reverts were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Tbhotch reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page protected)

Page: Soul (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation, Tbhotch made only two reverts, and they were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Doggy54321 reported by User:GngZack (Result: )

Page: Positions (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Doggy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Comments:

User has reverted the same article upwards of 4 times in the span of 24 hours despite the summaries of the edits explaining why they were necessary to remove WP:SYNTH material. A talk couldn't be initiated in the Talk Page because the page was changed to semi-protected status soon after the 4th reversion. GngZack (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Um...the third and fourth reverts were cleaning up vandalism. The page was semi-protected to prevent vandalism (I was out for a walk as this was all happening), and after I came back, I saw the page was protected because of vandalism. I went to check the edit history to see if there was any vandalism needing to be cleaned up (there was), so that is what the third/fourth reverts are for. Please keep in mind that those two reverts are exempt to 3RR per WP:EW#EX4. D🎅ggy54321 ^(ho-ho-ho) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@GngZack: you can open a talk discussion on the talk page, as it is not semi-protected. Talk pages usually are never protected. D🎅ggy54321 ^(ho-ho-ho) 15:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:152.86.164.35 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page: Animaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 152.86.164.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Hello Nurse and Minerva Mink are too sexual they don't allow that in educational shows that's why this show can't be educational because of them"
2. 22:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Yeah for toddlers this show got some some violence and a couple of sexual characters like hello nurse and minerva mink that is too inappropriate for younger children"
3. 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Leave educational out of this they'll think this show is for babies"
4. 21:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "This show can't be educational because of the violence, stupidity and sexual stereo types"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animaniacs."
2. 23:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Animaniacs."
3. 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Animaniacs */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

Page: Torwali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fowler&fowler (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 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ religion; enough to say Dardic language"
   2. 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ better geog description"
2. 01:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* History */ removing dubious POV history section; do you think I don't know when POV history is created by piecing together obscure sources; you don't have anything on the culture which is what the article is about and you are waxing about the history; take it to the Swat District page"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 01:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */ again this is not about the language; cutting the bloated language section; you don't have anything other that a content fork of the language."
   2. 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "language is a part of culture"
   3. 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ AGAIN this is not about the language;"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ this page is not about the language; it is mentioned in the infobox. the language has a separate page where you can wax about indo-aryan; the culture has little to do with indoaryan"
   2. 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ it is not just sitar; it is also a percussion instrument; the naming of the instrument does not belong to the lead"
5. 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 996824946 by Kautilya3 (talk): Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. The edit summary #5 is also quite toxic personal attack. I think given the situation a serious warning at least is in order. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor that was targeted did take it quite hard, understandably. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

India-POV-promoting editors have been relentlessly editing Pakistan-related pages, promoting Hindu majoritarian- (or anti-Pakistan) POV on them. It is toxic, utterly, and shamefully toxic. They don't know anything about Pakistan, but because the Pakistani editors on Wikipedia are exhausted, tired, and unable to counter, the Indians or India-POVers are getting away with promoting cultural irredentism. They claim Pakistan itself by some fantasy of Indian reunification, claiming Pakistanis, who are Muslim, as converted Hindus, or rubbing this in by whatever it takes. Someone has to come to the Pakistani's defense. I am the author of the FA India and the prime author of the History of Pakistan, Kashmir, British Raj, Company rule in India, Indus Valley Civilization, Partition of India, Indian rebellion of 1857, in other words, most things in Indian history that have anything to do with the current impasse between India and Pakistan. Do you really think I don't know what is going on here? Do what you must, but please don't forget that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the creation of NPOV content, not nickel and diming rules and playing Gotcha. I don't put it past the reporter, Kautilya3, to engage in such promotion himself; he routinely does this in India-China and India-Pakistan issues. What does he know about Swat? Nothing. The India-POV promoters adopt comical identities: they pose as Pakistanis (who make only gnomish edits on Pakistan-related pages, but substantial ones on Hindu-majoritarian topics; they award Pakistan Order of Merit barnstars to Pakistan-bashers from India); they award barnstars at the drop of a hat every day to each other. Have they written anything of consequence on Wikipedia? Nothing. This will be my only post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a Pakistani from the the KPK province and have seen your edits on Wikipedia. They in no way "defend Pakistan" but promote your British imperialist POV in Pakistan - you wrote an essay in one of your subpages defending colonialism in pre-partition subcontinent. Look at the talk page and see that everyone reached a consensus and then you Fowler&fowler came and started edit warring on the article. You Fowler&fowler have made what I perceive as prejudice statements like the one you have in your edit summary and have been warned before, yet you still make them. Will you say you're sorry and stop? These are some I found disturbing:

1. If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths.  Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion.[51]
2. We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that.  We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society.[52]
3. During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa.  (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills?  That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)[53]
4. Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.[54]
5. If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid).[55] Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

Page: Torwali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996881998 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv mass deletion by long-term communal POV pusher User:Fowler&fowler; gain consensus on talk page for contentious edits"
2. 01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996880886 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - gain consensus on talk page for contentious deletions"
3. 01:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ partial rv: the DYK reviewer specifically requested that the lede be expanded to summarize the article; discuss on the talk page if you disagree"
4. 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996853356 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - use the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. See also the above report for User:Fowler&fowler. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I was not paying attention to the number of reverts that I made and I humbly apologize for this. For the past few days, I and other editors were working on the talk page to reach consensus on the talk page. We did that today and when the other editor started blanking sections of the article, I became a bit frustrated, especially after I tried using the talk page and received no response besides continued edit warring. If the reviewing administrator would like me to revert any of my changes or to revert all of my recent edits, I would be happy to do that. I am sorry for any inconvenience that this has caused anyone. I wish you all a joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:94.35.25.239 reported by User:Gwennie-nyan (Result: )

Page: Mary Mouser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 94.35.25.239 (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 20:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 18:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been warned many times for disruptive editing ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:72.80.139.114 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page: Almah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 72.80.139.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Editors lying about the citations, which actually state the opposite."
   2. 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
   2. 17:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "You are lying about your citations, which actually state the opposite of what you claim."
   3. 17:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 18:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reversions are inaccurate, citations do not support what reverter claims"
   3. 16:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
   4. 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "fixing grammar"
5. 16:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Fanatics are lying about the citations and making frivolous claims."
6. 15:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "citations do no support claims made"
7. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Corrects citation, which actually says the opposite of what's been claimed."
   2. 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "The citations removed do not support the claims made."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: