Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive402

User:Khruner reported by User:Caribbeandelight (Result: Stale)

Page

Kerma Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931814081 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."
2. 13:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931961839 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."
3. 13:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931822420 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."
4. 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 931883280 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 931822420 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 931822420 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk) Rb joke by novice editor acting as an experienced one."
2. 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC) "Talk 931838100 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)."

Comments:

• This edit war came to my attention recently. Khruner was edit-warring on my favorite pages Kerma Culture. I am glad to see the case has been resolved for the biggest part. Looking into the case however, considering the punishment on one party, I couldn't help but notice the other abuser their case not having been brought forward yet. To prevent further disruption of Wikipedia regulation I recommend also reviewing this party’s engagement in the edit war, considering their violation of WP:3RR. It would be good to remind Khruner of our community guidelines to avoid such conflict in the future. Caribbeandelight (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Caribbeandelight, the real question is what you are doing here with your brand-new account, complaining about another editor's work a month ago. This report is marked "stale" and no further action will be taken. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies thank you for your contribution to this report.Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: I expect we'll be seeing a bit of the old Case 01 stuff on the talk page soon. ——SN54129 15:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • • NO SHIT IT'S THAT ONE. <insert eye roll emoji> Drmies (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Be prepared to get completely thrown off the scent...by Case 02 :D ——SN54129 15:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Please Drmies, could you contribute to the content of this report or not comment at all? Certainly cursing isn't appreciated. It distracts from the matter at hand. This also goes for the comments of user: Serial_Number_54129 which I don't understand at all. Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Hmm "no shit" is cursing--well, fuck me, I'll try to control myself. User:Serial Number 54129, who could have predicted this?? Oh, wait--you. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • message sent to reviewer in response to 'stale' verdict: Dear Bbb23, Recently I filed a report on the administrator's noticeboard in regard to an edit-war that occurred less than a month ('2 weeks and a couple of days') ago. I looked into it and noticed A LOT had occurred between the involved parties. One of the party's behavior had not yet been reviewed because no report was filed yet while the other party got a permanent ban as far I can tell looking at the available information. Considering the severity of the edit-war I thought it would be good to take measures to avoid having such an incident occur again. It appears you have not reviewed the case for the reason of it being 'stale'. Please explain this for me if you can. Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • What other accounts have you had on Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • That's what I'm wondering. A new editor whose first venture outside userspace is to report someone for editwarring with an editor blocked for using multiple accounts? Doug Weller talk 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Thank you for sharing your concern about my online activity. If you believe my behavior in in violation of community guidelines then please file a report in the appropiate place. As explained before I happened to stumble into this edit war on my favorite page about my ancestor's culture. I see what the other party did to contribute to the page and I saw how Khruner responded. It piqued my interest and as you can see resulted in my report. Could you now also answer my question? Caribbeandelight (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC

It should be clear to anyone with an account older than 1 day that the last one 08:22, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC) is not a revert at all, despite the fake side claim "Undid revision 931883280 by Arcanery (2A02:A443:A131:1:B16D:4C23:8F2:9A90) (talk)." The article was just restored to the status quo by Drmies, I just found it wise to repeat the source which was already present at the end of the next sentence, for what seemed to someone so absurd that it has to be deleted multiple times: Egyptian presence in Kerma during the Old Kingdom effectively ends by the 5th Dynasty, hence an Egyptian absence during the 6th Dynasty. Khruner (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Fona2000 reported by User:U-Mos (Result: no violation)

Page: Take That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fona2000 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] [7]

Comments:
Looks like I entered my comments wrongly and they vanished, apologies. User has repeatedly edited against consensus (both tacit through other user's edits and explicit on article talk page) and has not responded to invitations to discuss. Not in 24 hour period, but clear edit warring and WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour. U-Mos (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Even if it was in the span of 24 hours, you need four, not three, reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Procedural question: @El C: I understood from the heading of this page that it considers reports of edit warring in general, not just 3RR violations? I did not claim the latter. U-Mos (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:82.36.105.243 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: Semi)

Page

Sarah Jurgens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "View my talk page. This edit is being made at the request of Mx Jurgens. Please respect these changes."
2. 00:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "View my talk page. This edit is being made at the request of Mx Jurgens. Please respect these changes."
3. 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935178618 by MONGO (talk) PLEASE STOP ADDING THIS INFO. THIS EDIT HAS BEEN MADE AT THE REQUEST OF MX JURGENS."
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC) to 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 00:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 926711730 by ZarhanFastfire (talk)"
   2. 00:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 924745475 by Rich Farmbrough (talk)"
   3. 00:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 924558954 by Monkbot (talk)"
   4. 00:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 919230771 by ZarhanFastfire (talk)"
   5. 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 919230491 by ZarhanFastfire (talk)"
   6. 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 914844109 by ZarhanFastfire (talk) Completed on behalf of Mx Jurgens."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is repeatedly edit warring to remove content about a subject they (allegedly) represent. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The Sarah Jurgens article is semiprotected 1 month. The IP's edit summaries indicate this is WP:COI editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Lightningstrikers reported by User:CaroleHenson (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Occupational stress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lightningstrikers (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. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13], I provided links where this was discussed on the article talk page, and it was also discussed at [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15], [16], [17]

Comments:
Since the user began working on the article on December 26, 2020, there have been dozens of times that the user has reverted content [18]. They claim that there is collaboration and that it's in progress, but they have done very little that is productive and seem to really like to undo edits without properly explaining the issue, or ignoring feedback that is provided by guidelines. They opened a dispute and I was trying to address it by drafting text that 1) was able to be supported by sources and 2) addressed their concern about the lede by adding more content about other professions. So far, no one has volunteered to work the dispute, which I was hoping we could resolve and close.

Yesterday, there was a major edit war involving them (14 RR), another user (I believe the same number) and 3 or 4 by me, with discussion on the talk page. Seems very silly now...now that we've got good cited content in the article as a replacement.

There have been about six people that have warned this user about disruptive editing and edit warring here, here at ANI, here, here, here, [19], [20]. Their focus is nearly singularly on this article [21] –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec comments from the 3RR report I was making) I'm not involved in the content dispute. I simply warned this user and user:Iss246 for their 3RR violation on this article. I did not warn user:CaroleHenson since she had far fewer reverts and at the time of the warnings appeared to have stopped editing the article. Lightningstrikers claims to be new user who was unaware of 3RR before my warning, acknowledged the 3RR warning on his or her talk page [22], and on my talk page [23] but has continued to make reverts. User is at 8 or 9 RR in the last 24 hours, but there are far more in the recent history of this page, by all three users. There are seven threads on Talk:Occupational_stress about this dispute and it is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#occupational_stress Meters (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• While I was posting this, LightningStrikers made some changes to return part of the content. See this section. I am grateful to have some progress, but reverting in this manner is counter-productive and exhausting. I am willing to take heat for my role to get this resolved to a much much better place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yet you broke 3RR, also. And the uw-3rr warning was issued rather late in the dispute. How do you account for that? El_C 02:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• @CaroleHenson:. El_C 03:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Two things, El_C, I think Lightningstrikers was mad and unhappy that the content was being reverted, so they posted the warning on my user page. I didn't realize that I had made three attempts to revert, but I thought that I was trying to work the problem and thought it was an exception due to what I had documented to Lightningstrikers many times regarding a number of warnings by a number of users when they reverted content without properly working the issue. I tried to get it stopped here. If you feel like I deserve a block, I understand.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor ce.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• @CaroleHenson: honestly, I think you should have known better — warned Lightningstrikers about 3RR and reported them on AN3 much earlier (certainly before you yourself edit warred to the point of violating 3RR). The revision history of the page is an absolute reversion trainwreck. But I will forgo a block, seeing that at least your reverts are in the single digits, unlike Lightningstrikers and Iss246 (the latter blocked for 72 hours). But, please, be especially wary and cognizant of not letting something like this happen again. El_C 03:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Will do, El_C. Absolutely. I was shocked to hear I made more than 2 reverts in 24 hours, but I was absolutely caught up and won't do it again.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 02:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Casperti reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 January
2. 9 January
3. 9 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

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

Comments:

Already alerted about sanctions in this area before.[27]

Let us be clear that we are here dealing with an WP:SPA who is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Having reverted by 5 different editors in last 25 days alone over same edits,[28][29][30][31][32] he is essentially a WP:1AMer who is engaging in this disruption for an year now. He was reported earlier as well on this very same noticeboard for very same article but he has shown clear failure to abide by any suggestions and remains hostile towards other fellow editors.[33] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: This is just trying to shut my mouth, Dough weller and Kansas Bear's reverts were on the Religion section page. Which I agreed with them because there was nothing wrong with it. They did not revert me on the Sheen khalai source. Which you do. Also, trying to censor what I have to say is not going to help. This is just political I assume. Why should you change region of Pashtuns to the General region of South asia while their native region is specifically Afghanistan and west Pakistan. But we will discuss further in the Talk page + You have deleted the Disputed source which was not placed by only me. Casperti (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of one week. El_C 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

User:89.74.178.122 reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Mass shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935096201 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
2. 12:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935077994 by The Anome (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mass shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly reverting edits by other users. Breached 3RR rule at least once. (Also see history, for some reason TW didn't put all the difs up) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 19:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:2001:569:7A36:F800:17C:811A:D567:E9A6 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

Page

White Rock, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Andy Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2001:569:7A36:F800:17C:811A:D567:E9A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

White Rock, BC:

1. 23:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* ‎Notable people */ Jasper Deng is a bored wannabe cyber bully who wishes to supress information on the internet"
2. 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */"
3. 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Keep deleting the article! Keep showing everyone how you can't use Google, or contribute to an article instead of destroying it! Have fun at Community College!"
4. 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added Andy Anderson. Citations : www.peacearchnews.com/sports/white-rock-skateboarder-andy-anderson-goes-pro-keeps-olympic-dreams-alive/amp/ https://theboardr.com/profile/5729/Andy_Anderson http://kingskatemag.com/the-arrival-of-andy-anderson/ Stop deleting this. If wikipedia is your hobby, find another page that you know something about to edit. Thanks! Hey everyone deleting this. Guess what? I have contributed to wikipedia since 2003, and it was much better without YO..."
5. 19:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added Andy Anderson. Citations : www.peacearchnews.com/sports/white-rock-skateboarder-andy-anderson-goes-pro-keeps-olympic-dreams-alive/amp/ https://theboardr.com/profile/5729/Andy_Anderson http://kingskatemag.com/the-arrival-of-andy-anderson/Stop deleting this. If wikipedia is your hobby, find another page that you know something about to edit. Thanks!"
6. 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added Andy Anderson. Several people have added person ( it says please add to this list ) and "Berean Hunter" continues to delete it, a while knowing nothing about Skateboarding, or White Rock BC. Look on Google, YouTube, or Instagram for Andy Anderson. Berean Hunter, your account will be flagged for vandalism if you continue to delete this."
7. 08:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added Andy Anderson AGAIN. Do not remove if you cannot do a simple Google search for this person. He grew up in White Rock, and his family still lives there He currently has the best selling skateboard in the world, and will compete in the 2020 Olympics. Now go watch Netflix. https://powell-peralta.com/team/andy-anderson/"
8. 08:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Notable people */Added Andy Anderson AGAIN. Do not remove if you are unable to do a simple Google search for this person. He grew up in White Rock, and his family still lives there. He has the best selling skateboard in the world currently, and will be competing in the 2020 Olympics. Now go watch Netflicks. https://powell-peralta.com/team/andy-anderson/"

Andy Anderson:

1. 23:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 23:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Hahaha. Wikipedia is totally unprofitable because of people like you. Go ahead and delete it again. Block me. I don't care. The format is created for open revisions. It wouldn't exist otherwise."
4. 22:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Magnolia 677 is not polite or knowledgeable. It wants to destroy other people's articles, and not contribute."
5. 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Magnolia677 should stick to writing about rural Mississippi."
6. 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Get a life wikipedia nerds."
7. 08:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Added Andy Anderson Pro Skateboarder. Do not delete this if you cannot look this person up on Google. Yes, I am referring to you, wikipedia hobbyists who edit or delete pages they know nothing about."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on White Rock, British Columbia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Andy Anderson */ new section"

Comments:

Clear edit warring against multiple other editors even after I started, and invited them, to discuss. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• JohnnyRottenUK82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows substantial overlap in this editing area. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @C.Fred: IMO, since they won't listen, a block is really in order. Note that they initially inserted it as a different IP in the same /64 range so it should be a /64 rangeblock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• • @C.Fred: Toldya a /64 was needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP reverted again, so they have now been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf reported by User:182.52.51.4 (Result: no violation)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EkoGraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

Senior user well aware of 1RR on Syrian Civil War related articles violates 1RR telling me that's not how Wikipedia works thinking I'm a new user, while actually breaking the rules himself. 182.52.51.4 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. I already answered that on EkoGraf's talk page. El_C 07:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:144.48.111.211 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Mughlai paratha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "reverting vandalism and abuse of editing privileges"
2. 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "don't revert sourced edits, explain what's wrong in these edits first"
3. 08:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "don't revert sourced edits"
4. 08:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Please stop these nonsense reverts, Kolkata didn't even exist before the British rule and you are claiming this Mughal dish originated in this city, none of the sources claim as such"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: The IP has violated 3RR on other pages too. Should they be reported as well or are the covered under this? Gotitbro (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned)

Page

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935348770 by WMSR (talk) nope, the source talks about both quality and quantity."
2. 00:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 935007504 by Selvydra (talk): No consensus for these changes (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See below. The editor is well aware that his article is under 1RR and has been warned about edit warring many times before.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#Indiscriminate revert of changes

Comments:

The article is subject to WP:1RR (see [38]). This user has received previous warnings edit warring. [39][40][41] - MrX 🖋 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bureaucratic note, since this is technically an arbitration enforcement action, isn't this the wrong venue? GMG^talk 19:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I plead guilty. I did not notice the article was under 1RR, assumed since it was not a BLP it was not. I should not have removed the word "slightly" (which in fact I originally added and then removed.) Block away... ps: somebody nicely saying, "hey sashi that article you completely rewrote after so much bad blood is under 1RR"... but no... ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Warned. @SashiRolls: just pay closer attention to edit notices from now on, please. @GreenMeansGo: here or at AE is fine. El_C 19:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"I did not notice the article was under 1RR." This explanation beggars belief, given that you have in the last two weeks baselessly accused others of violating 1RR on the page and responded to comments where others warn you of your actual 1RR violations and BRD violations. SashiRolls on the talk page on the same article 13 days ago: "Your follow-up revert is a clear 1RR violation"[42] and "If anyone wants to take this to a noticeboard, it is an obvious violation 1RR violation"[43]. A week ago, SashiRolls responded to two users explicitly warning him of his 1RR violations on the page.[44] While the 1RR violations are bright-line violations of the editing restrictions on the page, my opinion is that SashiRolls's frequent edit-warring of new content that has been challenged by multiple editors into the article is far more problematic for the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, because it so brazenly violates WP:BRD and the consensus requirements for new content that all the other editors on the page have recognized and abided by. SashiRolls's constant restoration of newly added content that has been challenged also puts other editors in the awkward position of having to edit-war with him to remove the content (something that other editors have for the most part not done). This editor is a nuisance and clear net negative on this page. Furthermore, when SashiRolls, who has the longest record of blocks for any active editor in American politics, was unblocked, it was with a recognition that this editor would be kept on a tight leash. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I had not edited this page in 6 days and have been busy with work on BLP pages. As I mentioned quite clearly on the TP it was late, you were harassing me for explanations right now right now... I remember thinking "is this page under 1RR" and thinking "no, this isn't Tulsi Gabbard's BLP"... nice trap for a sleepy person, well executed, bravo. All the more amusing since I'm busted for removing my own word. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your snarks or accusation of setting a trap on an AN are a good idea on your part. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. Will you guys never be satisfied until Sashi gets another indef? Can we not let this minor infraction go? O3000 why do you always show up to make comments like these? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I had no problem with a warning -- until they started blaming it on others. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What amuses me is that X and Snoog were so upset by Sashi referring to them as "SnooX", yet here they are tag-teaming reverts on a 1RR article: Snoog, X, Snoog, X, and here they both are trying to get Sashi sanctioned for *gasp* 2RRing the word "slightly". That's slightly ridiculous IMO. Snoog, X: you two live in a glass house and should stop throwing rocks. You'll see Ernie and I show up to defend Sashi but you don't see the two of us or three of us tag-teaming reverts. What would you guys think if I went to the article now and reverted X's reverts, restoring it back to how Sashi had it? Totally kosher, right, since I haven't used my 1RR for the day? No, of course not. Please stop editing like this. – Levivich 22:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:93.138.100.176 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Semi)

Page

U boj, u boj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "This is not phrase is part of Serbian poem "Bojna pesma" this is serbian propaganda from propaganda serbian newspaper ,and "source" is from serbia"
2. 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "vandalism removed"
3. 15:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "this is not serbian portal"
4. 15:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934797313 by WEBDuB (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[45]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Serbian propaganda user WEBDuB is known for writing all the time ,so we should suspend it. That song "U boj, u boj" was written by Franjo Markovic in 1866, and this song is what he wrote some "Bojna pesma" is from 1876 ten years later, and it has nothing to do with this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.100.176 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You were in the wrong for reverting five times within the space of 24 hours. When it comes to content disputes you should have opened a discussion on the talkpage and invited the involved editors to take part. Instead you violated WP:3RR and were disruptive in the process. Esuka (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to WP:SOCK. One IP from Zagreb was warring to make a change, then a second IP from Zagreb shows up do to the same edit. May be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:46.226.190.219 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Semi)

Page

Dracula (2020 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

46.226.190.219 (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 22:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) to 22:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935313984 by Alex 21 (talk) Please do not remove these edits!"
   2. 22:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934839201 by Sebastian James (talk) Follow apparent policy."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC) to 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934858148 by Sebastian James (talk)"
   2. 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935313614 by Alex 21 (talk) This is based on previous disruptive editing."
3. 22:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Please do not add editing assertions to article text."
4. 21:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934839201 by Sebastian James (talk) Please stop this disruptive editing."
5. 20:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934833997 by Sebastian James (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dracula (2020 TV series). (TW)"
2. 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear violation of 3RR of adding genre and country of original, despite note displayed to prevent such past disruptive editing and being reverted by multiple editors. Warned on user IP talk page, but does not seem willing to respond. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor 87.254.79.66 is most likely them too. See [46] and then see [47] where in less than an hour the IP 46.226.190.219 appeared and made their first edit to the page to revert user Sebastian James and restore the 87 IPs edit. Notice how when the 87 IP stopped making edits to Wikipedia the 46 IP then appeared. Esuka (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, User:Jack Sebastian reported me here because I reverted this IP's (and someone else's) edits. I wonder why... −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I had a feeling the IPs belonged to a certain someone after reading that. User:Jack Sebastian has no history editing the page, I've checked the page history. It seems suspicious that he would come here so quickly to make a report after an IP hopping user was disruptive. Something doesn't seem right here. Esuka (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Are either of you suggesting that I am this AnonIP? Please, do a checkuser between me an the anon (or any anon). Sebastian James might want to consider two things before tossing out a pretty baseless accusation. First, he should consider the karmic effect of BOOMERANG; he very narrowly evaded a block and, if this is any indication, does not have the necessary mental equipment to repair their behavior. Secondly, I had not thought about someone who chose a username rather close to my own for several months before their edits pop up in my watchlist of articles.

And Esuka, you should apologize for the accusation of socking you leveled at me. I actually insist that you ask for a checkuser. I will expect an apology when it comes back negative. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I should apologize to you? really? No. I have said nothing to apologize for in this discussion. I believe there's enough there to cast reasonable doubt on your story. If that causes you upset or offense that's really not my problem. Also, I don't believe checkuser would clear you either way. Feel free to try and get me hit with a proverbial "slap on the wrist" if it you makes you feel better. Esuka (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that, as the reporter, I have no position in the above argument/accusations; I am simply reporting an IP editor for edit-warring. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

After a 24+ hour window, I have restored the edits and posted reasoning and a discussion on the talk page; I'll see if the IP returns. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I insist that a checkuser be run to clear me of any relationship to any other anon IP user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Checkusers won't confirm an IP to a registered account. I personally see no chance that this IP is Jack Sebastian, so the charge has no merit. User:Esuka should keep WP:ASPERSIONS in mind when accusing other users of misbehavior. The two IPs mentioned above are both from the Isle of Man and are likely to be the same person. Jack Sebastian reveals one of his own former IPs on his user page, and that IP is thousands of miles from the Isle of Man. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:1292simon reported by User:U1Quattro (Result: Both warned)

Page: BMW M8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:

1292simon has been making unfavourable changes not supported by any MoS and wiki-policy on the BMW M8 page. In the BMW M8 talk page discussion, I showed him three sources about the change he was trying to introduce and they were against the changes he was as making. Other than that, this user fails to provide a clear reason as to why he is introducing changes like these. Reasons for adding "FR layout" like "A full engine layout occupies more space for mobile users." and "The Front-engine layout is common and people know about it." are not good enough reasons and I proved these wrong at this talk page discussion. I'm fed up with useless discussions with this user as he has demonstrated that he cannot wait for other users to agree with him over the changes he is making and would restore them anyway. That is why I'm now forced to report this incident to this noticeboard to prevent any further disruption.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Both U1Quattro and 1292simon have been edit-warring in the BMW M8 article since early October, and I have been watching it since. The problem is, that they have been edit-warring about changes so negligible, that there is not a version that is definitely better than the other. The dispute is well documented on the BMW M8 talk page; reading doesn't take too long. I and user:Toasted Meter have expressed that we dislike U1Quattro's editing behaviour; I feel like I have to point out that he has been editing in a slightly hostile manner. U1Quattro argues that 1292simon's edits are "unfavourable", and "not supported by any MoS and wiki-policy". I think that is not a very good description. 1292simon's edits are not particularly better or worse than U1Quattro's. Simon has changed only very few words, I mean, just look at this edit [53], which has been the most recent thing that has been edit-warred about. There is neither a need nor a good explanation for 1292simon's edits. But neither is there for reverting them. I'd argue that both U1Quattro and 1292simon have failed to reach consensus. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:1292simon and User:U1Quattro are warned. You have been discussing the turbochargers for months (since October) but you have been unable to organize a poll of editor opinions on the talk page. Consider an WP:RfC. Either of you may be blocked if you continue to revert without first getting a consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Padavalamkuttanpilla reported by User:Authordom (Result: no violation)

Page

T. G. Mohandas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Padavalamkuttanpilla (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 08:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) to 09:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 08:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "unsry tg"
   2. 09:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 934983378 by L235 (talk): Disruptive editing (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No violation. Only two reverts are listed —the article is not subject to 1RR— you need four in order to violate 3RR. El_C 10:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:TeeVeeed reported by User:John B123 (Result: stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [[54]] page created with term "sex-worker". 1st instance that I can see of (incorrect based-on source used) change to "prostitute" [[55]]. undo's warring and rev immediately follows that last edit up to what we are discussing here which is a request to keep "sex worker" for that statement because of WP:BLP and reference.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56] 11 January 2020
2. [57] 10 January 2020
3. [58] 10 January 2020
4. [59] 10 January 2020
5. [60] 21 December 2019
6. [61] 21 December 2019
7. [62] 21 December 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63], [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eastbound Strangler

Comments:

TeeVeeed has in the past tried to change the terminology in the article from "prostitute" to "sex worker". Most recently he has tried to change one instance of prostitute to "self-described sex-worker". The edits were initially reverted initially by Flyer22 Reborn and then later by myself. Although the principles of WP:BRD have been explained, TeeVeeed takes the view his changes should be restored whilst the matter is discussed. I understand TeeVeeed has previously been warned on here about edit warring in similar circumstances on other articles. --John B123 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the edit warring. Yes I changed it after a month at discussion because I believed that the matter was resolved. I was trying to collaborate and apply consensus. The complaining editor is the one being rigid and showing ownership issues with "prostitute v. sex-worker." I believe that any mistakes or contested edits that I made to the article have been resolved with the exception of one at this point. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion referred to was at the Village Pump. No consensus was achieved, although you could conclude that there was no preference of using "sex worker" or "prostitute" except perhaps on articles dealing with subjects prior to the term sex worker being coined. I'm not sure how this is seen as justification for reverting to changes other editors have objected to. Even assuming this to be genuine misunderstanding, it does not explain the subsequent reversions. In fact these 4 subsequent reversions break the 3RR rule. [65], [66], [67] & [68]. --John B123 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it was stated by more than one editor that going by what the source says is acceptable and the source reference connected to that one change (same ref used three times in article) distinctly did not refer to Hill as a prostitute despite you misstating more than once that it did. Frankly I apologize for any warring behavior of myself if that applies, but I am feeling an WP:ICANTHEARYOU feeling in non-response to my repeated requests of the complaining editor.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also adding here if it makes a difference, that up until about a month ago, User:John B123 acted on this project mostly exclusively as a WP:SPA regarding topic Prostitution with what looks to me like thousands of prostitution edits. Also personally I am not a "he" thank you.20:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No idea of the relevance here, but for the record: I am a member of the Sex Work Task Force and have edited and created articles on that subject. I am also a member of WikiProject Motorcycling and have edited and created articles in that subject too. In addition, I have edited and created articles on other subjects, gaining a Cure Award in January 2019 for being one of the "top ~250 medical editors" and a Barnstar in October 2019 for my work on the article Cold War. However, if you look back through my contributions the greatest number of the 55k edits are for fixing cite errors. The suggestion of WP:SPA is therefore completely unfounded. --John B123 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Also The article Talk Page has a BLP template warning at the top of the page. I am requesting a change in venue for this discussion or should I just go ahead and open up another topic on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard?22:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have added some difs to the top of this topic thank you. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Adding the diffs illustrate from questions of 3RR that for this article it was always "sex worker" from the beginning, which conforms with the source used there. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no consensus for changing the wording to "sex worker" while editors (including me) have opposed changing it to that. So it's best that TeeVeeed doesn't edit war over this. Should go ahead and start an RfC instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be changing it "back" to the original correctly used based-on the source "sex-worker" for the record. I disagree but as I previously stated if this is going to continue and I have to open a discussion I am tending to look to WP:BLP, not sure why Rfc would be preferred? TeeVeeed (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Stale. By all means, if there are BLP concerns, feel free to relist on BLPN. El_C 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:PlanespotterA320 reported by User:AlAboud83 (Result: protected)

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:
The User is refusing to use the talkpage first and is insisting on arbitrarily changing the page,violating the 1 Revert Rule of the page.Alhanuty (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of one week. El_C 12:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:TechMastaSwimmer reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page

Utah State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935619621 by Praxidicae (talk) I did take it to the talk page. You are vandalizing the page without discussing the deletion in talk. Please see my discussion in Talk. You are citing no reasons and have not given any reasons in teh talk for the deletion."
2. 18:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935618476 by Praxidicae (talk)NO stated reason for deletion. All relevant, accurate and well-cited information."
3. 17:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935615761 by Contributor321 (talk) COntributor321 is removing large amounts of cited data and is vandalizing this page. information removed is relevant and cited and should not be removed."
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) to 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 17:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 17:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "/* System */"
   5. 17:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "/* System */"
   6. 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 17:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   8. 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   9. 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Edits */ new section"

Comments:

this is a two part issue, also with Silicon Slopes and violations of WP:NPOV Praxidicae (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments: The information provided was relevant, accurate and cited. There was no reason for the vandalization or the deletions. Please set forth why relevant, accurate and cited information is being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMastaSwimmer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement with your edits is not vandalism. Stop using that term. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And as a side note, I realize it may seem quick to go right to ANEW but considering there was ongoing discussion on the talk pages of both articles, this user still decided to rapidly revert without any actual discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Smith0124 reported by User:C16sh (Result: Smith0124 blocked; C16sh warned)

Page: Interstate 84 in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smith0124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Jan 13 16:50
2. Jan 13 17:59
3. Jan 13 18:12

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Had an intial conversation with the user here regarding the same behavior on other article pages, which appeared to be resolved. Left another message on the user's talk page about this article specifically. While writing up this edit warring notice, it was quickly reverted.

Comments:
This user made 3 reverts on the I-84 page and has made countless reverts of my edits on other pages in WP:USRD. I request they be blocked for a significant time for these actions. According to the block log and here, this user was recently blocked for edit warring and pledged to stop reverting edits, but clearly this behavior has not stopped. I request they be blocked substantially for this behavior.— C16SH (speak up) 23:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)}

Actually, I made two. The first is a revert of a different edit. This user never stops harassing me on my talk page, even when I tried to be nice and compromise, and is removing content on articles such as Mosholu Parkway. I have every right to be concerned. We compromised on articles such as New York Thruway. If it’s really that important, protect the page. I’ve clearly proven I’m no threat; I haven’t touched the US 44 article since. I act solely in good faith. Smith0124 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @331dot: You unblocked the user. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the user broke their pledge to stop edit warring. The reporting user also seems to be warring themselves. As to what should happen, I'm content to leave it to your good judgement. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, I’m sorry I disappointed you. I really appreciate the second chance, I never intend to cause any harm. This user was removing content, it feels like my duty to help out. I try hard. I know this means nothing, but honestly, while I believe this user should be warned for removing content, neither of us are guilty in my opinion. Smith0124 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked Smith0124 for edit-warring. @C16sh: As 331dot pointed out, you too were edit-warring. I'm letting you off this time with a warning. If you edit-war again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Fma12 (Result: malformed)

User reverted my edit twice 1, 2 on 1994 FIFA World Cup Final.

His reasons were (as he statedd) "bad spelling and copyright violation in the US", which I consider not only harsh (a bad spelling can be improved) but falacious so the URAA issue was already discussed on Commons and closed in 2014 as "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". Moreover, I don't any rule that forbid the use of non-PD-US images on this project. In fact, other articles such as 1986 FIFA World Cup Final have images with the same license, with no user alleging "copyvio" issues like Gorlitz did.

I contacted the user to request a valid reason for his reversions, but he also reverted the discussion showing a non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all.

I also left a feedback on Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup Final where he opened a discussion before removing the file (again) from the page, and leaving me a warning for "copyright violation". - Fma12 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.. El_C 10:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Malformed post aside, it seems like Fma12 made an early threat in the edit summary of their revert without having discussed the issue on a talk page. That's premature to have been lobbing threats already. Please follow the earlier steps in dispute resolution before resorting to reports.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The question for me is whether the image is a copyright violation. It's tagged as still being under US copyright and so it should not be in the English project.

Just to be clear, Fma12 added what I saw as a copyright violation to the article. I reverted. He restored the content and supplied the logic that the image is on commons as the reason for its use on the English project in a comment on my talk page. I have an edit notice that such discussions should take place on the talk page of the article where the issue occurred. I moved the discussion to that article's talk page, making that clear that the removal on my talk page and reverted again as a clear copyright violation on the English project. I then responded on the article's talk page. He reverted and did not discuss. WP:BRD was not followed by Fma12. I am trying to discuss there, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 January 13 and he is offering no reason why an image that is tagged as being under copyright in the US can be included in the English project. His only argument is that it's available in Commons so he's going to include it here. To suggest that a copyright violation is not a valid reason for removal seems to be a clear case in missing the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The dispute has been settled. After a longer discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 January 13, User:Fma12 is conceding the point and has removed the image in question from the article. This is a case where Commons is keeping an image in their files for use in other language Wikipedias even though it is not considered free use at enwiki. For details see the wording of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If there is a need for any follow-up discussion, it can take place at WP:Copyright problems. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:50.106.158.74 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: semiprotected)

Page: Mica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.106.158.74 (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. [76]
2. [77]

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

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

Comments:
This IP is a return of blocked sockpuppeteer LithiumFlash; here are old edits from the master and other IPs making the same inane change: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. They will continue to edit-war until blocked (or page is protected). --JBL (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 6 months. El_C 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krish990 and User:Payalmishraa reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Partially blocked)

Page

Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Payalmishraa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 13:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Starring section */ new section"

Comments:

While not a 3RR bright-line violation, from the article history you can see this has been going on for several week now with zero attempt from either to actually discuss the issue. I left a pretty pointed note on both editors page yesterday and they are back at it today, zero discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week from the article only - they can thrash their differences out on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Izno reported by User:Googinber1234 (declined)

Page: List of Mass Effect characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mass_Effect_characters&oldid=924676243

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mass_Effect_characters&diff=935805848&oldid=935805533
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mass_Effect_characters&diff=935802792&oldid=935802572

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Mass_Effect_characters#Missing_characters

Comments:
This user is deliberately removing entire characters from the page, actively keeping it incomplete, having first done so in 2017; this is unambiguously a deliberate effort on his part. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mass_Effect_characters&oldid=935805533 is my correct draft so far. Googinber1234 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have explained at the talk page discussion above what needs to be fixed for Goog's contributions to be acceptable on Wikipedia and specifically that page, citing multiple guidelines and policies. I'll just leave it at that. Ferret may also be interested in this "report". --Izno (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Declined report. User:Googinber1234: you are advised to read the comments on the talk page, take them on board, and stop trying to add content without reliable sources — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:RossButsy reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: stale)

Page

Batman: Arkham Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "YID ARMY"
2. 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Oh my god lad oh my god. Not the Batman wiki the actual Wikipedia page for the Arkham games go get off your high horse and read it and it’ll say NINE months."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) to 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935439070 by I literally just looked at the Batman Arkham Wikipedia page and it says 9 months 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 game informer ain’t a source same as reddit when I did it months ago"
   2. 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935439070 by I literally just looked at the Batman Arkham Wikipedia page and it says 9 months 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 game informer ain’t a source same as reddit when I did it months ago"
   3. 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC) "I just looked on the Batman Arkham Wikipedia page and it literally says 9 months on it 😂 go look for yourself lad. Yabish"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) to 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) "Yeah game informer just isn’t a source 😂 find me a tweet from sefton or summat I’ve seen him say 9 months in a video geezer. Safe innit"
5. 16:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit warring and ignoring sources. Yes I know my reverts will be classed as edit warring as well, the user's talk page demonstrates a history of not collaborating but it has been pointed out multiple times that the information he is changing is sourced and he ignores it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: What do you think RossButsy meant by the edit summary "YID ARMY"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, I don't honestly know, he keeps putting on a very exaggerated "lad" persona for responses. Google says it's either a term for Jewish people or for fans of Tottenham Hotspur football club. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Heh, I was, not surprisingly, unfamiliar with the word for the football club (I wonder why), but the word is a very derogatory term for a Jew. Why would he use the word for a Batman article?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edit war: at first I thought both parties should be blocked for exceeding 3RR. There is a rather complex sourcing issue about one year versus nine months, where www.gameinformer.com says "That game [Arkham City] ended with the death of the Joker, and we rejoin Batman one year later", whereas the lead of our Batman Arkham article (the WP article about the entire series) says "The fourth installment, Batman: Arkham Knight (2015), is Rocksteady's conclusion to the series. Set 9 months after the events of Arkham City, .." Regardless of the sourcing issues, neither side is allowed to keep reverting forever, so I'd encourage any closing admin to take enough action to be sure the war doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: while I don't know his location I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and 'assume' he meant the football club since [insert]+army can be used to represent a fandom. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Closing report with no action. If I saw this today I would have blocked both editors, but it is now stale and the edit war has not continued. Both editors are warned against edit warring on this or any other article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:86.8.200.94 reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: Blocked)

Page: Michael Keaton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
86.8.200.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.8.202.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.8.201.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
83.70.60.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]
5. [89]
6. [90]
7. [91]
8. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

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

Comments:

User edit warring from several IP addresses with several other users. Response to 3RR warning. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is a case of vandalism more than edit warring. The first three are clearly all the same person, evident from their abusive edit summaries if nothing else - but all three are also insistent on making the same edit regarding Michael Keaton. I have blocked 86.8.200.94, but I recommend a range block. 83.70.60.84 is probably a different person. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The edits from Special:Contributions/86.8.200.0/22 are mostly vandalism. I recommend a two-week block of that range. Agree with MelanieN that 83.70.60.84 is a different person and doesn't require a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 86.8.200.0/22 range blocked for two weeks - I did a spot check and every edit was vandalism or contained abuse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Honest Yusuf Cricket reported by User:Christianster94 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dumbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edits made between 05:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) to 20:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Edits made between 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) to 00:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Edits made between 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC) to 00:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Edits made between 13:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC) to 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Edits made between 16:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC) to 16:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

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

Comments:
HYC has been warned, reported, and banned last month for disruptive edits and violating copyrights by heavily quoting Floyd Norman's article. Ever since his ban was lifted, he has re-inserted most of his information by continuing to add original research and quoting largely too much of Norman's article. Again, he has made no attempt to discuss his changes on the talk page and has added back his information after his edits were reverted back by me and other users. Basically, I am requesting a longer ban period and perhaps, some page protection. Christianster94 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User seems to have no interest in following our policies. Any admin can unblock if they believe the problem won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Eldapeeze reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Indef)

Page: 2019 San Francisco 49ers season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eldapeeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]
6. [101]
7. [102]
8. [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:
I first attempted to raise this issue on the article talk page, after User:Eldapeeze first reverted my edit to the article in question. Their revert also undid a number of other changes I had made to the article, so I warned them via an edit summary to be more careful about what exactly they are restoring when they perform a revert. They seemed to respond to this, as all their subsequent reverts were only to restore specific content I had deleted. The reason why I deleted the content is explained on the article talk page, and I invited User:Eldapeeze to contribute to the discussion via a message on their talk page, but it appears that they are either unaware of talk pages or incapable of accessing them, as they have never made a single edit to any form of talk page since they first started editing Wikipedia nearly 12 years ago. Since their initial revert, they have made a further seven, only the last of which appeared to be anything other than a blind undo, and even then the only difference was that they added some unsourced content to the article. Given the policy laid down at WP:COMPETENT, I have grave concerns over User:Eldapeeze's competence when it comes to collaboration, communication and consideration of evidence. For my part, I recognise that I fell foul of WP:3RR early in this process, but given the circumstances, I feel my actions were justified. – PeeJay 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – For sockpuppetry by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c5:9313:b900:2d78:e737:efd4:ad2b reported by User:ABH95 (Result: 24 hour block)

Page: User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a00:23c5:9313:b900:2d78:e737:efd4:ad2b (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gareth_Griffith-Jones&action=history

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

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

Comments:
The IP went way over 3RR and the reverts in the other direction are covered by an exception for reverting in your own user space. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:1.144.110.196 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

January 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "(Tag: Undo)"
2. 01:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "(Tag: Undo)"
3. 01:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "(Tag: Undo)"
4. 21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on January 15. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Sources needed for Days of the Year pages"

Comments:

See also Template:Editnotices/Page/January 15 Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Tonyb1961 reported by User:Moonythedwarf (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Onix Audio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tonyb1961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Details are not factually correct and the article is not relvent in its revison"
2. 03:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Please clarify you interest to deatroy this aricle that is historic and establsihed"
3. 02:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Vandalsim"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC) to 02:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935991817 by MrOllie (talk)"
   2. 02:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undo Based Editing of established historic and relevnt article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 03:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
3. 03:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is engaging in personal attacks against other editors, and has ignored the Conflict Of Interest requirements. They do not seem to wish to resolve the issue directly, and instead are resorting to attacks, including baseless claims that MrOllie has a COI, when it is quite evident they do not. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, now that I think about it. CCing MrOllie as an involved party. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I also reported this user shortly before Moonythedwarf did; I have removed my report in favor of this one. –Erakura^(talk) 03:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I like to comment that Tonyb1961 attempts to solicit my help to help in his edit-warring (see my talkpage) and that he did attempt to justify his COI but was removed due to personal attacks included in his justification.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Allisonscameron reported by User:Meters (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Jennifer Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Allisonscameron (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. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]
5. [110]
6. [111]
7. [112]
8. [113]
9. plus eight more from September not listed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115] on Morrison page and [116] on Ballani page

Comments:

User (with user name of one of Morrison's well-known characters) is an SPA edit warring in an attempt to add Adrian Bellani to infobox on Jennifer Morrison as a partner, and vice versa. (8 times in September, stopping after discussion at User talk:TAnthony/Archive 6#Vandalism on Adrian Bellani page, and restarting this month with 8 more attempts). The Infobox "partner" field is for listing an "unmarried long-term partner", basically a common-law spouse, not just a boyfriend/girlfriend. User has provided no sources, just edit summaries claiming that Morrison has mentioned Bellani on social media, and that they have been photographed in public together. This is not 3RR since the edits are spread out, but the user responded [117]to the WP:EW warning thread (which included a link to the article talk page thread I started [118]) and then reverted again [119], so there is a clear intention to continue the edit war. User reverted again on Adrian Bellani also. Meters (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Warned. They may need citations explained to them in further detail. Shouting OFFICIAL is not a source. – bradv🍁 04:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:47.55.68.244 reported by User:The Mirror Cracked (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitChute&curid=55998495&diff=935923128&oldid=935921566

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935921566 by Britishfinance (talk) I made edits with fully accredited references. There is absolutely no need for discussion. This "edit war" is taking place simply because someone does not like the content on, obviously, ideological grounds. Why else erase referenced statements? I contributed to Wikipedia before it's bias became obvious. Your censorious behavior is a disgrace to Wikipedia."
2. 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935917339 by Britishfinance (talk) I edited a page with accurate references. This was reverted by TheSLEEVEmonkey who obviously ideologically disagrees with the supported statements I made. I will revert it again and if you wish to block me from editing Wikipedia again, please do so. I have contributed financially to Wikipedia in the past and I will never do so again."
3. 14:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935913044 by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) Sabotage again. I'm reporting this. The references CLEARLY and DIRECTLY support the statements."
4. 14:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 935911085 by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) The references clearly and directly support the statements. Whatever agenda you have, please stop sabotaging this webpage or I will be forced to report it to wikidpedia admin."
5. 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "provided credible references for previous revision"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on BitChute. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [120]

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation after appropriate warning and attempts to engage user on the article talk page. IP has expressed clear intent to continue edit warring util blocked. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Doug Weller. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Did you consider a partial block of just BitChute? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie: no. Partial blocks are a good idea where an editor has shown that they can edit constructively elsewhere, but I've no reason to think this IP will be able to. In any case it's only 31 hours. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

user:2001:4DD5:B140:0:3D53:95EA:CB21:374F being reported by Eldarion Result:IP advised of 3RR

Page: Self-coup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:4DD5:B140:0:3D53:95EA:CB21:374F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

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:User consistently violating BLP and NPOV. Eldarion (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified them of 3RR, if they stop reverting then we can close this with no action. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rhithin reported by User:McSly (Result: Partially blocked )

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

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:
Only the diffs for the past few days are listed but the same user has been making the same edit a few more times since November and also with multiple IPs (one example here:[130]). After discussion on their talk page, they seemed to agree that the change was not correct yesterday [131] but then repeating essentially the same change with no explanation this morning McSly (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Partially blocked from the article for 72 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:141.138.47.86 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936110349 by Nyook (talk)"
2. 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936110349 by Nyook (talk)"
3. 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936110349 by Nyook (talk)"
4. 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936108274 by FlightTime (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Motörhead. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Taqueishon reported by User:151.50.190.184 (Result: Filer warned)

Page

2020 in sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit warring despite a discussion took place in September about the content of the page, in which something was established. He doesn't want to understand that due to page size issues certain events cannot be inserted on the page and that those events will be transferred on the respective main pages as soon as the main pages will be created. Despite I already started working on this, he keeps undoing my edits, even if he's just messing up not only with the page itself (I didn't revert anymore because this situation is going on since last night) but also with the other main pages, in which he doesn't even know what should be inserted and what should be done (it seems like he's just doing a copy-paste work without any criteria, to be honest). I already saved most of the content which should be transferred in the main pages (and, as I wrote above, I also started transferring it into the respective main pages) and tried to explain to him how we should proceed in this case in his talk page (also underlining that he can create those main pages since he has an account), but he just answered that I must create an account (I'm not bound to do so) and that information should stay there where they are. I don't know what else I can do since I just want to land a hand on that page and nothing more. --151.50.190.184 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has blanked the main article, holding the page size argument, an argument that is right. Several users created that information and the user: 151.50.228.247 has deleted it without moving it to the corresponding pages, so I asked him to own and rest editions were maintained until everything was found in the secondary articles. It seems to me that he went from editing to enrich the main article to edit according to his vision of how the information should be presented. Regarding the creation of the account I was assertive that he mentioned that it was a good opportunity to create one, saying verbatim: "I invite you to create an account and how you say this is a good opportunity". It seems to me a lack of respect that I cannot value the work and time spent on this page by me and by other users and take into account what one presents for the support and the growth of information about it. and how it was mentioned: "Please do not undo the editions until the information is on another page". For these reasons, or that the report to my account does not seem fair to me, especially because I have edited sports pages since 2015 and it is the First IP with which I had these conflicts. Taqueishon (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just specifying that my vision is based on a discussion on the article's talk page, in which you could/should have taken part (even before starting the edit war, since each idea can be discussed on Wikipedia). Given that the project XX in sports is mostly based on a subjective pov, a discussion was required. Anyway, since page size would have soon been a problem, I started doing my own without any intention of disrespecting yours or other users' work (in fact I saved those information and transferred everything immediately after the first two main pages have been created, as you can see). Nothing has been deleted, indeed (I would never have done that). And for this, I also underlined you could have landed a hand with this process since you already have an account (and I do not want to have one). But since no one has done anything (even those users who have been "editing sport pages since 2015"), I just did my own. I don't want to create problems, I'm just trying to bring a bit of order in that project: it's a different matter. But this discussion shouldn't take place here, so I wait for someone to judge the situation. --151.50.190.184 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me an absurd discussion, taking into account that we both look for the best for the article, so I apologize if you felt offended with my issues and I refrain from the administrator's resolution. Taqueishon (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Before administrators close this report, I suggest they examine the sports-related edits from the range Special:Contributions/151.50.128.0/17 since 1 January. I see reverts being made from at least three different IPs on the article 2020 in sports. The three IPs that appear to be the same person are:

• 151.50.190.184,
• 151.50.228.247,
• 151.50.132.129.

Even a good-faith IP will have trouble being taken seriously if they are hopping from a range. Yet you filed an edit warring report from the *.184 IP without any acknowledgment of this situation. If you find yourself unwilling to create an account or to use a stable IP I think you should limit yourself to the talk page. These changes are controversial it is too much work for others to have to deal with a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) I can confirm those edits are mine, but I did that because there has been a discussion (which has been ignored). In that project, everyone is doing whatever they think, there is not a way of proceeding from one year to the other (look at 2012 and 2013 version). This said you can also block the range IP, I'm not here to create problems (and I don't want to, I repeat). But I suggest also to check the job Taqueishon did with the main pages (also here) because it seems all but an encyclopedic work, just a bad copy-paste work, as I wrote. Thank you. --151.50.190.184 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Filer warned. The IP editor is warned against making further reverts at 2020 in sports or related articles unless they get a prior consensus on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If your proposed arrangement is better, you should be able to find others to support your plan. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:2001:E68:5437:C871:994A:469D:252A:138D reported by User:Ishakkaihatu (Result: Page fully protected)

Page: Running Man (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:E68:5437:C871:994A:469D:252A:138D (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. Consecutive edits made from 05:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC) to 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:
I have a complaint on her talk page. However, the user made the same type of edits again and reverting the correct edits made by me Ishakkaihatu (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected Edit warring yes, but proper warnings were not given. No discussion on the article talk page. Both the IPv6 user and Ishakkaihatu are engaging in edit warring. I am locking the page until the content dispute can be resolved. Continuation of the edit warring will result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is result of discussion [138]Ishakkaihatu (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Whitemiceeverywhere reported by User:Isaidnoway (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts: only edits ever made by account (4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

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

Comments:

The only edits they have ever made are reverts to above article. They have been reverted by 4 different editor's. They still continued to revert after the 3RR warning. Don't know if it's relevant or not, but their account was created 8 years ago — diff. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: They are still at it with another one [141], which makes 5 and they've been reverted again (5 different editor's total have reverted them). Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. @Isaidnoway: In the future, complete reports properly or they made be closed as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cavegirlsmash reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

John/Eleanor Rykener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936228670 by Shellwood (talk) Yes, I've made notes of why this change is necessary and these reversions are occurring without discussion."
2. 14:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936227676 by Modernist (talk) Again, given Eleanor Rykener's clear statement of "calling herself Eleanor" and Wikipedia's policy on identity that persons must be identified as they chose to be identified, based on the last known instance of their expressed personal identity, regardless of any legal name, these changes are mandated based on Wiki's policy."
3. 14:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936191133 by John B123 (talk)"
4. 03:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Changing pronouns to accord with her stated self-identification from the court case in 1395, and in keeping with Wikipedia's best practices for dealing with transgender women."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (gg) (TW)"
2. 14:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John/Eleanor Rykener‎ . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Consensus is clear on the matter both through the consensus established on the talk page and by policy; this is the reason for the reversions by three independent editors (not including myself) . ——SN54129 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143] (Reverting this edit by me)
2. [144]
3. [145] (Reverting this edit by me)
4. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147][148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149][150]

Comments:
Similar edit warring has been carried out simultaneously at Germani.[151][152] Krakkos (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Krakkos and I both did two reverts each on two articles I think? In my case my reason for trying a second one is that the edsums were clearly wrong, and in such cases a second revert with an explanation and call to look at talk page discussion can help. I don't know how Krakkos can justify things, because the edits are quite obviously a deliberately disruptive outburst to prove a point. Some interesting smaller facts:

• The talk page diffs Krakkos gives are clearly from long before this outburst of Krakkos where he started splitting out the core of the article into a new article, which is clearly against consensus decisions from several repetitive rfcs which Krakkos keeps calling and losing.
• There are current talk page discussions I have already asked Krakkos to respond to, so I was already trying hard to get move to the talk page. Krakkos has refused so far. [153]
• It is not only two articles. Krakkos also immediately started changing redirects etc in many articles.
• Krakkos only posted here after receiving a warning for edit warring, along with me. I don't see any way Krakkos can argue that I am edit warring unless Krakkos is also.

To me it seems this discussion is not necessary as long as the talk page is used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime I also find it very disruptive that Krakkos continues to rush to try to create some kind of fait accompli, creating the new WP:POVFORK. [154]. Work on that article clearly should freeze?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just looked in detail and I see Krakkos is counting some earlier edits as reverts. I had not even noticed that because earlier in the day I was working on shortening the article as called for by Krakkos [155]. Some of the material I removed, among many edits, was new, but I don't consider that a normal revert. To me those are accidents which are happening because of the disruptive behavior. Why say you are concerned about length and then start adding things in while someone else is working and concentrating?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I warned both editors (before this discussion here was posted), as both were edit warring extensively (a lot on one page, and more reverts on other pages). I don't see a reason to sanction either if the edit warring ceased after the talk page warnings. I just want to note that it wasn't "two reverts each", I count e.g. for Andrew Lancaster alone, on Germanic peoples, one, two, three four five six seven edits today which reversed additions by Krakkos, and the same exercise could be done for the opposite actions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as already noted, I admit my counting problem if you count all edits which reversed something Krakkos did, which I indeed did not think of in that way for the reasons I explained above. More is going on, but I don't think it is best seen as an edit warring case unless Krakkos or I would take it further from here. I unfortunately suspect Krakkos's subsequent rush to make more fundamental changes to the structure of these articles after posting here was not done without thought. The talk page archive for Krakkos shows the types of concerns which consistently come up for massive undiscussed changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Warned Users have been warned. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:1CB7:EB00:C4C8:DD3F:7D21:2E1B reported by User:Adam9007 (Result: Page protected)

Page

LGBT slang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:C7F:1CB7:EB00:C4C8:DD3F:7D21:2E1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed false information"
2. 15:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed false slang"
3. 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed non-lgbt terms and corrected 1 definition"
4. 13:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */asexuals aren't part of the lgbt community nor is it slang by us"
5. 12:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* English terms */removed no-specific lgbt terms"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing (now sourced) information. Adam9007 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected The page is now protected, this should hopefully motivate the user to discuss on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Gordon Walker conviction removal (Result: Semi)

For months now, a user (under multiple IPs/accounts) has been removing a Child abuse conviction section on Gordon Walker's page, saying that it violates WP:BLP. Here's the full edit history. They haven't made any attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.

I'm not really sure which of their accounts to notify about this report. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 11:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected -I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:5.146.192.248 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Page protected 1 week and IP blocked 24 hours)

Page

Joanne Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.146.192.248 (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 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) to 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joanne Nova. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Open and shut case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week and IP violating WP:3RR Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Recent edits from IPs and new accounts have been unsourced and reverted. I cannot see any sourced IP or new user contributions for years. Protected for 1 week. If after the page is unprotected the IPs continue to add unsourced content / make similar edits, then page protection should be longer and/or indefinite. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:73.202.57.203 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: IP blocked for 48 hours)

Page

USS Callister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 22:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 21:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 05:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 01:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ""
7. 02:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Analysis */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings on user talk page, as well as attempts at discussion. Editor has not provided any explanation anywhere, whether an edit summary or a talk page. Reverted by three editors, including myself. — Bilorv (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. I notice that Kingsif also violated 3RR. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Kingsif would you care to comment? I don't see the IP's edits as vandalism. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Dreamy Jazz: Sure - a while ago, some IP with no other edits was doing the same thing - removing the word "trope" on this and I think a few other articles. Some people don't seem to like the word. At that time, myself and Bilorv reverted, with explanation as to the fact it's the word used in the source and a technical term that encompasses more analysis and theory than 'story' or similar words do, which is how it's being used, so changing is inaccurate. The IP ignored us both and continued (but obviously stopped at a point) - when the behavior picked up again, it seemed clearly to be the same vandalism (rather than disruptive editing because of the behavior pattern, having been addressed, warned, ignoring these, then coming back to do the same much later). Myself and two other editors were reverting and warning this time (I myself gave four warnings through edit reasons and talk page templates), though I find in the history that I've made 3 reverts in 2 days (correct if wrong), so I don't think I violated the rule - I also find it clear vandalism, in any case, because of the above. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Also note the 76.something IP in the history that was doing this same thing a few weeks ago - the editor may be the same and quickly come back with yet another SPA IP. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Kingsif, [156], [157], [158], [159]. All on the same day within 24 hours of each other.

  I believe from the history of the article, as you point out, that this is a blocked user (specifically Fangusu). Basically the problem I have here is you don't claim an exception to 3RR on grounds of block evasion, but claim it on grounds of vandalism. Only obvious vandalism has a claim, and I don't see the changing of a word to another similar-ish word obvious vandalism. I won't advance with this further, but in future, when reverting this blocked user, use it as the exception in your edit summary. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• That's the one, I will do if it happens again, thanks for understanding. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Quoting from the exceptions section on 3RR: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Started writing my comment before the above comment was posted Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  IP blocked for 1 month for ban evasion by Fangusu. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:BeastDoge reported by User:75.191.40.148 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2019–20 NFL playoffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BeastDoge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [160]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [161]
2. [162]
3. [163]
4. [164]
5. [165]
6. [166]
7. [167]
8. [168]
9. [169]
10. [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

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

Comments:

75.191.40.148 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. This is a dispute over live scoring of games in progress. Whoever is right about this, continued warring is not allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Padavalamkuttanpilla reported by User:Riyastir (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Arif Mohammad Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arif_Mohammad_Khan&diff=936644808&oldid=936643465

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arif_Mohammad_Khan&diff=936644808&oldid=936643465
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arif_Mohammad_Khan&diff=936415527&oldid=936415217
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arif_Mohammad_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=936418184
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arif_Mohammad_Khan&diff=936413988&oldid=936407822

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arif_Mohammad_Khan Noted Removal of Sourced Contents

Comments:

This Wiki User seems like a promoter and they try to hide some facts which is properly sourced from Renowned Medias like India Today. Consider his Talk page and see his improper contributions.

By User:Riyastir

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. One of the cited edits was over 24 hours prior. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Riyastir reported by User:Padavalamkuttanpilla (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Arif Mohammad Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936651791 by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk) Most of the Sources are from India Today. It's an established news portal in India. The Last Revert is unnecessary. Don't Undo Again"
2. 03:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936646673 by MelanieN (talk) Content Updated (Reference already there. Don't remove entire content if you can't find the source)"
3. 03:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936644808 by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk) Don't Remove Properly Sourced Content"
4. 03:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Source added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Arif Mohammad Khan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Controversies & Scams */ new section"

Comments:

Things that have no reliable source are constantly added. While discussing the talk page Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  05:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Warned Riyastir Consider this a last warning. Your proposed changes are in dispute and you must gain consensus for them on the article talk page before you can add them. I also suggest that you review the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Additions to BLPs must be extremely well cited. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex Neman reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Suzuki Carry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alex Neman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:25, 20 January 2020 "Restoring all cropped, rear view & better images. Infobox in order."
2. 03:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Use better angle and rear view images, infobox order. I already croppped some images."
3. 02:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 02:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "I already cropped some images. There are some images that is not better angle and high quality. Restoring rear view images of the Carry vans from the seventh to current generation"
5. 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "I already cropped some images. There are some images that is not better angle and high quality."
6. 02:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "I already cropped some images"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
2. 02:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ re"
3. 03:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ 2 options."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Alex had changed images which IMHO felt didn't need changing, Despite telling Alex to go to the talkpage they continued to revert and after giving them the option of self reverting and going to the talkpage[172] they instead made over 30 edits to the article adding the images back individually[173], Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. The sheer number of individual edits do indeed seem excessive. But 3RR was not violated. El_C 11:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry what ..... El_C Alex has 4-6 times been replacing images despite 3-4 times being told to go to the talkpage ..... I fail to understand how this isn't a violation?..... –Davey2010^Talk 11:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be four or more reverts in the span of 24 hours for a violation to happen. El_C 11:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C Yes and it's only been 9-10 since this edit war happened ..... 24 hours hasn't passed ?....... –Davey2010^Talk 11:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed the result from No violation to Warned - I had asked Ritchie333 to relook at this[174] (since I was convinced 24 hours had not passed) and they have since warned Alex, Great to know I wasn't going completely mad!. Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, Davey. Again, sorry for not being as thorough in this instance. El_C 12:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Happy editing, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As Alex Neman ignored the warning and carried on editing logged out, I have blocked them from editing Suzuki Carry for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Robotdingo reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: 36-hour partial block)

Page

John Coleman (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936705014 by AzureCitizen (talk) Grounds for reversion not provided. I assume there are none."
2. 13:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936696616 by Cyrej (talk) Sources are entirely appropriate."
3. 05:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Views on global warming */ The one thing missing from this section was Coleman's actual views on global warming. Instead, this whole section is character assassination. Read the section title. Removed uncorroborated claims that "experts have questioned his credibility." Rephrased "he has... made numerous false and misleading claims" to "Coleman's critics have accused him of making false and misleading claims." Broken citation link is hardly "appropriate citation"--please provide source."
4. 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Views on global warming */ Citations to reliable sources needed to corroborate claims. Many of the citations provided to not corroborate the claims made in this article."
5. 00:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936576805 by Joel B. Lewis (talk) Coleman's assertions that the IPCC's manipulation of data had undermined their credibility is highly relevant to this section on Coleman's views. One of the sources provided is a broadcast by KUSI TV wherein Coleman himself lays out his position on global warming which is more relevant than some of the sensationalistic journalism being peddled as factual sources in this article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned by Cyrej (see User_talk:Robotdingo) JBL (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Partial block applied. El_C 14:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Davecain2 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Functional medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Davecain2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Previous further readings were bias articles from the website(sciencebasedmedicine.org) David Gorski."
2. 17:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Previous references were all bias articles from the website of David Gorski."
3. 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Previous entry was hugely bias and written by David Gorski who has a personal vendetta against functional medicine"
4. 17:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Updated primary website. Previous description was hugely bias and written by a person against the practice of functional medicine. Functional medicine deserves a true, accurate and informational wiki page."
5. 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Previous description was hugely biased and politically motivated by a doctor(David Gorski) against homeopathic medicine"
6. 16:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "These references were hugely biased and politically motivated. These were personal references written by David Gorski, someone against the practice of functional medicine."
7. 16:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "The description of functional medicine. The previous description was a hugely bias description written by David Gorski, who is, for some reason, against this discipline of wellness. All references listed were from David Gorski’s website https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/. This should not be the description a patient sees first when researching about functional medicine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Functional medicine. (TW)"
2. 17:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Functional medicine. (TW)"
3. 17:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Functional medicine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There is existing (closed) discussion on the talk page of a same debate, which the edit warrior has not accessed or commented. Repetitive warring with 3 editors has been the choice of engagement. There is also a COI issue for this editor. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the text that they are adding appear to be copyright violations. --McSly (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and probable spamlinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Zvikorn reported by User:Nemov (Result: Both warned)

Page: Zack Hample (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Zvikorn: Zvikorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]
3. [178]
4. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:
This user has been blocked from making edits to article in the past. Has returned and is making more disruptive edits over the last couple of weeks. I have requested over and over for the user to go to talk to build consensus before making further edits to the section. Those requests have been ignored. - Nemov (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Zvikorn and User:Nemov are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. If you disagree about the 'banned from three major league parks' issue consider asking about it at WP:RSN. Note that the disappearance of the original web articles and the constant deletion of tweets makes the sourcing rather nebulous. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to hold off from further edits on the article for now. Even after being warned by EdJohnston the user continues to revert the article. - Nemov (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Due to his continued warring after the original closure of this report I have blocked User:Zvikorn for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Pineapple Dreams reported by User:Erin Brandt Filliter (Result: Warned)

Page: Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pineapple Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]
4. [186]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Comments:

• Warned User not sufficiently warned before report. Note that Pineapple Dreams' edits are vandalism; I will warn thusly. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• This article has been vandalized heavily in the last two days. I'm looking into it further. It may need protected. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm monitoring for now, but it appears that only one editor has caused the damage. If further vandalism occurs by that user, please report them to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:UniqueHornClub reported by User:Sakhalinio (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Turkish Football Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UniqueHornClub (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. 19.35, 20 Ocak 2020 (UTC)
2. 19.34, 20 Ocak 2020 (UTC)
3. 18.59, 20 Ocak 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:
The user writing on talk page "one point of view" but He/She deleting more than 4000 byte information and deleting to this and this page number of championchip. You can count on page how many National championchip. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Warned other admin has warned the user and there's been no revert since that warning. Also, although it was disruptive editing, it does not appear to be a technical 3RR at this time, N.J.A. | talk 15:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sávy reported by User:Dey subrata (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Converted and moved from WP:AIV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Page: 2019–20 I-League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Participants:

• Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dey subrata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

• Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continuous and persistant vandalism of the article 2019–20 I-League, deliberately adding factual and unsourced materials again and again even after warned of no doing it.. I try to discuss with the user but there was no hope. The user was warned several times, even I have brought the issues every time I warned, but seemed to have totally ignored. I have given a final warning, thought it will stop doing it. But same, I try to discuss the matter even after giving the final warning, but there was no reply, even I have opened a discussion at the article talk page with the hope that the user will response but instead of response the user again vandalised with removal of materials and adding wrong, factually incorrect and unsourced materials into the article and also violated the WP:4RR also. Its out of control now, I don't think the user will change as he had a history of vandalising article and was previously blocked in 2019 for vandalism. Dey subrata (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Semi-blind guess: Partial block for both... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Why me? I have opened discussion and warned the user several times. Secondly, I am not adding anything factually incorrect and wrong information in the article. Please go through the Savy's talk page, I have brought to him every issues but the user have ignored every single time. Secondly, a lot of articles on Indian football are maintained by me, I have never added anything factually incorrect in any pages ever. Always try to engage in discussion and here the user have totally igonored any kind of engagement in discussion. Even I opened a discussion at the article talk page, but of no use. The user had a serious history of vandalism and edit warring, copyright violoation and edit warring for which was blocked once before. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, looking at the user's block history, you may well be correct, and this may well end in an indefinite site-wide block for Sávy, who has not yet ever edited a talk page nor their user talk page.

However, repeatedly reverting someone's edits while linking to the edit warring policy is pretty... bold. I assume you're relying on the "living persons" exception of WP:3RRNO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Yes, I simply reverted because that was what need to do, because those information were incorrect, wrong and unsourced, and its not that I have not brought the issue to the user. I also did, but there was no response. This somehow follows the point 4 and 7 of WP:3RRNO and but those incorrect materials are not healthy at all for a article which is about a ongoing top league of a country where readers visit frequestly for correct information not wrong information and which have a viewership of avg.20000/month.Dey subrata (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Check, the user again added factually incorrect, second some unsourced, third a section which was previously several times being asked not to add as already List of 2019–20 I-League season roster changes page exists and we the editors who work on WP:FOOTY never add such in the main league article, rather spilt into another article per WP:LENGTH, WP:SUBARTICLE & WP:SPLITTING. I don't have any hope of changing in his edit behaviours, since been blocked 3-4 times in past and warned multiple times by very experienced editors like Coderzombie but were failed attempts, no engagement in discussion from the user's side. The user should be blocked immediately, it has became a daily issue in the article. Dey subrata (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Dey subrata here. The user continuously adds unsourced information and engages in edit warring. In spite of leaving multiple messages on their talk page, never engages with other editors. Support site wide ban. Coderzombie (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• My semi-blind guess turned out to be incorrect. I don't think it's necessarily vandalism; this appears to be the result of disruptive good-faith editing. Nevertheless, the repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN justify a block. The complete lack of communication and three previous blocks make it an indefinite one. @Dey subrata and Coderzombie: Thank you for your patience and the detailed explanations that finally made me notice the amount of disruption.
  Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:174.254.66.7 reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Blocked 3 months for block evasion)

Page: Dmitry Medvedev (partisan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.254.66.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [188]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Comments:
In fact, the deletion was initiated by an IP user with a blocked range: [193]--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Same as the range block applied to the IPv6 range, which the first IP was caught up in. Looks like ducky evasion of the range block which was placed for evading a block. Nicoljaus you must notify the editor(s) you report here using something like {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~, as it says at the top of the page and in the edit notice for this page. This is even more needed for IP editors as they do not get pings, so wouldn't even get any indication of this report. Next time, make sure you do. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbro reported by User:TheAmazingPeanuts (Result: Blocked)

Page

Music to Be Murdered By (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [194]
2. [195]
3. [196]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Comments:
This editor has violate the three-revert rule by keep removing and reverting content just because they disagree with the score of the album, and it doesn't help that the editor is uncivil as well. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I warned User:Nbro that he seemed to have violated 3RR on the 23rd per this message. His response was: ...Do not bother me! I will not touch that article anymore! You're just a complete waste of time. Should this be taken as an agreement to stop edit warring? Is it enough to avoid a block? EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The editor has stop warring but the response to you was not civil at all (WP:CIVIL). The editor has made several uncivil comments to follow editors throughout the day [198] [199][200], I know that isn't enough for a block but that behavior is unacceptable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been uncivil, telling me "I don't give a fuck about your threats. Go threatening your pet." (Edit) when I warned about a block for edit warring. The editor then said "I will keep reverting the addition of this ADM average bullshit. And I will also remove it from all other Wikipedia articles I am interested in." (Edit) indicating that they will continue their pattern of disruptive editing based on their personal opinion. A warning should at least let the editor better understand how Wikipedia works and encourage them to behave better in future disputes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Besides the edit warring and personal attacks, User:Nbro has also been deleting others' comments from Talk:Music to Be Murdered By. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bones Jones reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: No violation)

Page

White phosphorus munitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bones Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937334524 by MrBill3 (talk) No, there's no consensus to ADD this information, the other user is currently arguing why it should be here. Until they have made their case, it should not be here."
2. 07:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "We don't need all this excessive detail and random people who don't matter saying things"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on White phosphorus munitions. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Recent mass reversion */ mass revert undone, discuss here step by step or get consensus"
2. 11:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Recent mass reversion */ cmt/r"

Comments:

• I'm not entirely sure how making exactly three reverts counts as a 3RR violation. Bones Jones (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bones Jones, Nor am I. More than 3 reverts is a 3RR violation, MrBill3. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I withdraw this report, as constructive dialog is occurring on talk page and a fourth revert did not occur. MrBill3 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  MrBill3, In the future, i'm pretty sure it's best to report when an actual violation has occurred instead of bringing it here preemptively. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  point made Moonythedwarf, of note the article is subject to arbitration 1RR restrictions, so both myself and Bones Jones probably actually violated edit warring policy. MrBill3 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  MrBill3, :ohno:

  Well, Good luck. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Talk page edit notice is not good enough, as the Arbitration Committee recently clarified — there needs to be a mainspace 1RR edit notice (also the awareness criteria need to be satisfied). I have now done so as well as applying extended confirmed protection to the article. So from now on, it is subject to 1RR. I also note that, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version should remain in place while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:JamesAndersoon reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)

Page

Anna Blinkova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937491343 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
2. 10:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937489149 by Tomcat7 (talk)"
3. 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937423148 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
4. 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937414553 by Wolbo (talk)"
5. 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937406309 by Wolbo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */ new section"
2. 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
3. 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
4. 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ivana Jorović. (TW)"
5. 23:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
6. 10:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Anna Blinkova. (TW)"
7. 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Anna Blinkova. (TW)"
8. 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "/* January 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tried on JamesAndersoon's talk page, tried in summaries, brought up one 50/50 item at Tennis project talk page... no response and he never leaves a summary of his edits. We have Guideline charts and he's ignoring them. If something might be changed he needs to bring it to the Project's attention and discuss instead of a forcing the issue. We tried but it is now out of hand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So you posted here, when I reply to your comments on my talk page? Why you don't respond there, instead of going here? Intresting ... probably cuz you don't have answers.

Just go to Anna Blinkova's page and you will see how much good stuff I made there, but you rather want to do that. For everyone to know, that this guy ignore others mistake, but prefer to watch what I do. Cheers.

Talking about not responding in summary, you probably forget how I have some problems with other users, protecting guidliness, and you don't say even a singles word. That's the reason why I don't respond now, cuz knowing how he behave in the past, it was pointless to tell him something. And yeah, this guy is okay with that that so many career statistic's page stay on only one source??? Ok ...

We crossed in the mail on your talk page response as I was busy writing here when you were posting there. And what you posted in reply doesn't help at all. And I don't watch what you specifically do but I have thousands of pages on my watchlist. I asked you to stop so many times, as have others, but nothing from you. I'm leaving it for administrators now as I'm getting tired trying to fix all the bad charts and bad sources... again as others have pointed out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If you were tell it to anyone that do something against guidliness, I will listen you just like I did it before, but cuz you made fool of me, always changing your mind, sometimes you do this good, sometimes not, but for other is ok, i'm forced to do that. But don't worry, they will block me cuz you know the best, but you don't want to show that, and you don't want to use "force" on other users that are against guidliness. Ofcourse, you will let it to administrators, cuz you don't answers for questions that i ask you. And you almost never did. Than ask yourself why I behave like this to you. JamesAndersson (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And one more thing, he reverted my collapsible legend-tables, but not on Ivana Jorovic's page, cuz there I don't made that change. It was made by another user a year ago, that now join Fyunck on these (un)realiable sources. So fyunck don't want to made change on Ivana's page, cuz they are now together against my edits. JamesAndersson (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The reverts by JamesAndersoon are a clear violation of WP:3RR, particularly, but not limited to, the Anna Blinkova article. He also gave no explanation for the reverts. And when finally he does respond edits like [201] show a clear battleground mentality. And personal attacks like [202] are simply not acceptable.--Wolbo (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Germanic peoples (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205][206][207][208][209]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [210][211]

Comments:

Andrew Lancaster and i disagree on what the main topic of Germanic peoples should be. This has resulted in controversy.[212]

Last week Andrew Lancaster flagrantly broke the 3RR rule, and received a warning from Fram (i received one too). The article Germani was subsequently protected.[213]

Andrew Lancaster (and i) then resumed edit warring at Germanic peoples. Dougweller then protected Germanic peoples,[214] and warned Andrew Lancaster (and me) that additional edit warring might result in a block.[215]

Two days ago i spent some time cleaning up the article Germania, while adding additional sources and content.[216] Andrew Lancaster then followed me to the Germania article, and resumed edit warring by completely distorting key content that i added.[217] I then contacted[218] Dougweller about Andrew Lancaster's continued edit warring, but Dougweller is to busy to look into the issue and adviced me to take it to a noticeboard.[219]

Today i started an RfC[220] at Talk:Germanic peoples to gain community input on what the main topic of the article Germanic peoples should be. Andrew Lancaster has now extended the edit warring to Talk:Germanic peoples itself by removing my RfC.[221] This makes it impossible to reach a consensus on the issue which has resulted in this controversy. Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the correct venue for the complaint. There is no edit-warring at the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if this is not the correct venue. What is the correct venue then? Is it permitted to remove other editors comments from talk pages? Krakkos (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• If you believe the RfC was improperly removed and you've discussed the issue with Andrew but have been unable to resolve the problem, then WP:ANI is the best venue. I have not looked at the RfC and therefore have no opinion on the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Was it just a "comment"? There was already an on-going discussion where any new comment could be added, or a new discussion could be started. In the current situation, any new RFC should however first be discussed to get it right, as there are open controversies and illogical/aggressive RFCs can be used as a blunt weapon to destroy conversations. Indeed, this was not the first time for you to do that within a short period of time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC) In effect what you want (though you write your RFCs without explaining what they are for) is in the category with moves, merges and splits. See WP:RFCNOT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:180.150.114.118 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Oxford Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.150.114.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [223]
2. [224]
3. [225]
4. [226]
5. [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Comments:
Editing warring over connecting streets, without citations, and mild incivility. I have made major contributions to the article so I am WP:INVOLVED in spades. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week persistent edit warring, with what seems to be a battleground mentality to Wikipedia. Some less than civil comments directed at other users and edit warring over multiple pages. Finally there was a 3RR violation, as reported, on Oxford Street. They did allude that if they were blocked they might evade their block, so keeping an eye out incase they evade will be a good idea. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ratherous reported by User:Jabo-er (Result: No action)

Page: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ratherous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (I skipped this part because the article is being heavily edited)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:
This user keeps on reverting my edit to use a more appropriate map on the article concerning the ongoing epidemic. I have given my arguments on the talk page and even requested for Rfc. However this user has kept on reverting and has given no counterargument (or any argument at all).--Jabo-er (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, the version i was reverting to is the original version before your disruptive editing without consensus. You cannot report me for edit warring when it was you who was changing the page without proper consensus. You cannot POV Push and expect to report users who do not let you do that. --Ratherous (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that both of you may have broken 3RR on 24 and 25 January. It would be unfair to block just one. You should continue to search for agreement at the RfC at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#RfC on map of infected cases. I take note that the other party, Ratherous, has been participating in the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kavin Mudaliar reported by User:Luigi Boy (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937245007 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
2. 08:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936500314 by Mr.Sarcastic (talk)"
3. 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934382280 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
4. 20:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933742994 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
5. 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933835769 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
6. 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933542170 by Xenani (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238]

Comments:

This user has been warned several times. He's trying to push his view resp. adding synthesised OR. On the talk page there's a discussion ongoing, however, it doesn't seem to be really helpful to set out the problem. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long term edit warring on Mudaliar since early January. User:Kavin Mudaliar gets no support on the talk page, and his changes are being referred to as original research. There is also a language barrier that makes it hard for him to be understood. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Lassebeg reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Declined)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "My net is lagging, my content is being removed or something."
2. 22:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Typo"
3. 22:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Health Warning */Typo"
4. 22:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Health warning */Typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note Editor has not reverted since receiving a warning about 3RR. Editor is new to Wikipedia and is engaging on their talk page. As long as there are no further reverts, no administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Declined User is engaging on the talk page. If there are further reverts, another report can be made. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbro reported by User:Moxy (Result: 2 weeks)

Page

Kamikaze (Eminem album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937671418 by Robvanvee (talk) What disruptive edit exactly did I perform?"
2. 13:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937669859 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)"
3. 13:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937669758 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)"
4. 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937669376 by Koavf (talk) You're again reverting an edit for your own pleasure, but I will do the same. You go to talk to that page not me, because I am not interested and there is no need."
5. 13:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937668952 by Koavf (talk) Stop reverting my edits for NO reason."
6. 13:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937668480 by Koavf (talk) Which malformed references are you talking about?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Others have warned the user for dame offense on other pages.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

People have started talks to no avail.

Comments:

Seems to be happening on many pages Moxy 🍁 14:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (sitewide). El_C 15:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Wshallwshall reported by User:nfitz (Result: blocked and page protected)

Page: Sikorsky S-76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wshallwshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239]

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:

Page protected for a period of 3 days. El_C 02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like User:Acroterion did the block while I was filling out the form! Can someone close this? Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz, it's closed. I closed it. El_C 02:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had an edit conflict trying to add that note Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: Filer topic banned)

Page

Kamrupi culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937150693 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
2. 06:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937149820 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) to 06:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937149167 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
   2. 06:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */"
4. 06:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */There was no Old Kamrupi language, if so provide source. And it's already covered in Assamese language."
5. 06:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937147061 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kamrupi culture."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is persistently edit-warring to remove well sourced information plus citation, they are unwilling to reply to warning on their talk. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User Bhaskarbhagawati has been trying to push his point of view on Wikipedia since 2012 and has been consistently disruptive.

• He was recently served notice at ANI: [240]
• The notice lead to an extensive DRN discussion [241]
• This led to a number of moderated RFCs [242], [243], [244], a discussion [245] and a final move [246]
• After this extensive exercise, we have arrived at a consensus that
  • Kamarupi Prakrit is different from Kamrupi dialects
  • Kamrupi dialect is best characterized as a dialect and not a language
  • Kamrupi dialect is actually a group of different individual dialects.

Since then, user:Bhaskarbhagawati has been pushing his point of view in these other pages, in contravention of the general consensus that we had reached. If there is an edit warring, then Bhaskarbhagawati himself is one of those indulging in it, and he has been pushing a POV that has been discarded by the community.

Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both Msasag and Bhaskarbhagawati have been edit-warring on Kamrupi culture and on other articles, e.g., Early Assamese, having exceeded 3RR in both articles. Bhaskarbhagawati, you have a fair amount of gaul to bring an edit-warring report against another user when you yourself are equally guilty. @Chaipau: The ANI thread is from last April, which is not exactly "recently". This board is not generally suitable for an in-depth review of an editor's conduct. If you feel that Bhaskarbhagawati's conduct continues to be disruptive, you should take them back to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 i agree that i should not violated the rule myself, i gave in my frustration. Issue brought in by another user is resolved after decade old discussion (since 2012). User provided link to DRN, which reads (see above): (Eleventh statement by moderator Here is a summary of the contested points. User: Bhaskarbhagawati has requested that Goswami, Medhi, and Sengupta be included. User:Chaipau has requested five changes to Kamrupi dialect, and six changes to the articles on the old language. We are in agreement that the first paragraph of each article is satisfactory. Do the other editors agree to the specified changes? Robert McClenon (talk) 6:46 pm, 9 May 2019, Thursday (8 months, 16 days ago) (UTC+5.5) Twelfth statements by editors First paragraph of Kamarupi Prakrit No change. Any change should take into account that Kamarupi Prakrit is the article about the language in Kamarupa before 1250 AD, and is different from Kamrupi dialect. First paragraph of Kamrupi dialect No change Any change should take into account that Kamrupi dialect is the article about the modern dialect some evidence of which exists from 18th century. I am not making any pointed refutation of Bhaskarbhagawati's proposed changes at this time.) Chaipau (talk) 1:22 am, 13 May 2019, Monday (8 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+5.5). They agreed there to not to refute any particular proposed changes, but now, they went back to their old position that Goswami (subject of current edit warring) should not included. I invested two three months in that DRN to solve the issue, i don't know what to do now.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon was the moderator of the June 2019 DRN which was mentioned above. I've posted to make them aware of this AN3 complaint. I agree that both Msasag and Bhaskarbhagawati have broken 3RR, so admins have discretion to take some action if they think one or both parties are at fault. Due the background, this might be viewed as a long-running edit war. From a quick read, it seems that it is usually Bhaskarbhagawati against everyone else. Bhaskarbhagawati has already been notified of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a totally unnecessary situation brought by User: Bhaskarbhagawati. Now he's even preventing me from creating articles related to "Kamarupa". He removed and reported Early Assamese, perhaps because he calls it "Middle Kamrupi". To be honest I don't have much experience on Wikipedia policies but I'm aware of edit warring. Seeing him ignoring discussion results, trying to force his views going against everyone, removing the article I have been writing, I got frustrated. He even reported! He has been creating a lot of troubles it seems and wasting our time and efforts. Early I thought he had some misunderstandings, but it doesn't seem that he tries avoid them, rather he has been pushing the same views, and perhaps for revenge he's also troubling other topics where we are involved. And by the way this "Kamrupi" issue brought by User:Bhaskarbhagawati is something that doesn't even exist. I have seen just two people having a similar view with Bhaskarbhagawati that Kamrupi is a separate language from Assamese language and they referred to the wikipedia articles of Bhaskarbhagawati. So knowingly or unknowingly Bhaskarbhagawati is bringing this issue. Msasag (talk) 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note i have hardly edited articles involved in DRN since its conclusion, (involved administrator asked to take some break to cool down the issue). I think after elapsing of several months, those citations which are agreed on by all on said DRN can be used now, atleast in related articles (which is case now) and other party will not edit war on it but it is not the case.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bhaskarbhagawati is indefinitely topic banned from the languages of Assam, both article and talk. This includes the pages at Kamrupi dialect, Kamrupi Prakrit, Early Assamese and anything else that may be related. This ban is under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. Bhaskarbhagawati was notified under this arb case by User:Abecedare in April of 2019. Problems with Bhaskar's editing were summarized at ANI back in April, 2019 in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi (closed by Abecedare}. Nobody is allowed to keep reverting indefinitely on the same topic. The person should obtain consensus for changes that are known to be controversial; if they don't get consensus they should let it go. You can see from the recent edits of Bhaskar on Early Assamese that this is a continuation of the dispute that was said to be successfully resolved in the DRN. Since 2012 there has been a great deal of process around Bhaskarbhagawati's concerns and lots of discussion. At some point this has to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston i like to appeal this ban. My point by point objection are:

• This ban is under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. Bhaskarbhagawati was notified under this arb case by User:Abecedare in April of 2019. Problems with Bhaskar's editing were summarized at ANI back in April, 2019 in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi (closed by Abecedare}. My view:The general notification by said administrator was given after a complaint was filed by other party. The case was finally closed as content dispute and redirected to DRN, where it was successfully resolved.

• Nobody is allowed to keep reverting indefinitely on the same topic. The person should obtain consensus for changes that are known to be controversial; if they don't get consensus they should let it go. My view: I agree there is a edit warring on both sides, and i reported it here. I mentioned above that there is general consensus among parties to include the said references, so there is no policy violation on my end.

• You can see from the recent edits of Bhaskar on Early Assamese that this is a continuation of the dispute that was said to be successfully resolved in the DRN. My view: That is completely unrelated to the said DRN, Early Assamese is newly created by content forking of existing Assamese language articles, which was marked for speedy deletion, but author himself remove it number of times till now.

Consider roll-backing the ban. (Copy of this appeal will be placed on your talk and elsewhere as required by policy).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:216.170.20.163 reported by User:Oculi (Result: Semi protected & account blocked )

Page

United States Equestrian Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
2. 19:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
3. 19:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
4. 19:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
5. 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
6. 19:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
7. 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"
8. 14:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid WP:VAND"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring by 2 editors (3RR) Oculi (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the problematic user is user:WilliamMoroney who has been inserted blatant WP:BLP violations on the article and has just created an attack page United States Equestrian calling the CEO of the organization a "racist and liar" followed by a phone number. --McSly (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly so. Is there a way to prevent the WP:BLP violation without undoing it repeatedly? --216.170.20.163 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• No violation The IP was reverting BLP violations and is exempt per WP:3RRNO. The account the IP was reverting hsa been blocked. I have semi-protected the page for two days. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent. Apologies to the i.p. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oculi: Thank you for reporting nonetheless! It needed attention. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --216.170.20.163 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:NormanGear reported by User:Melroross (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [247]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [248]
2. [249]
3. [250]

   [251]

4. [252]

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

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

Comments:
Attempted Talk and reaching compromise. User keeps engaging on systematic partial reverts and vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melroross (talk • contribs)

• Of the five diffs provided, two are consecutive edits, and one (which I struck) is from the reporting editor. So there are only three potential reverts listed, and it's not clear that they are reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Declined. No evidence of discussion at the talk page. No evidence of a breach of the bright-line three-revert rule. I suggest the reporting editor engage in actual discussion at the talk page and seek WP:Dispute resolution if that fails. Administrator noticeboards are neither a dispute resolution forum nor a shortcut to "winning" a dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:LakesideMiners reported by User:2601:601:9980:5D80:ECCA:778E:3488:DBA (Result: Page semi protected by Kinu)

Page: U.S. Route 2 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LakesideMiners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_2_in_Washington&type=revision&diff=937862259&oldid=937861668 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_2_in_Washington&type=revision&diff=937862411&oldid=937862259
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_2_in_Washington&type=revision&diff=937863220&oldid=937863004
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_2_in_Washington&type=revision&diff=937864023&oldid=937863525
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_2_in_Washington&type=revision&diff=937864437&oldid=937864341

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

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

Comments:

IP contined to edit war after protection expired, and has not been talking on the talk page since. also pinging MarnetteD, SounderBruce, and Kinu as they are also all involved in this in some meaningful way. Also, I am willing to accept the consequences for my violation of WP:3RR (also would like to note that IP did NOT notify me of this thread being opened.) LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page suggests that the access dates do not need to be changed; indeed, it suggests that the consensus is that they not be changed unnecessarily and the status quo ante version of the article is properly cited. That the IP repeatedly waits for previous semiprotections to expire before restoring their preferred version suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and possible WP:OWN issues. I have once again restored the article to its status quo ante version and semiprotected the article yet again to prevent further edit warring. To the IP: this is bordering on WP:LAME. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP filing here is most likely the same as the person reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive401#User:2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Semi) on 26 December. If the closing admin feels this case deserves a block, they might consider a /64 block of the range. Last time around, one party said "Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors." The IP continues to make these changes to the access dates and seems not to listen to feedback. They also give lectures on policy in their edit summaries, while continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The recent edits from the whole /64 range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2601:601:9980:5D80::/64. The IP's fight over access dates did not begin until 2 December 2019. The WP:DRN report about U. S. Route 2 in Washington did not archive properly, but the result can be seen at this link from 10 December. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Special:Contributions/2001:569:7378:3400:C810:284C::/64, which is clearly the same editor, the edit warring goes back to 28 November. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As a result of my semiprotection, the IP user is now hounding me on my talk page, with the same policy lectures. I have asked them to disengage, but this seems to be a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:67.48.200.162 reported by Andrew Englehart (Result: Semi)

Page: Hyman G. Rickover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.48.200.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]
5. [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]

So, I didn't know I was required to post an "edit warring" or "3RR warning" on the user's talk page, but I did post several times and asked him not to revert without discussing further. I hope that counts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260] [261]

Comments:

One of these reverts (the first one) comes from a different IP address, but due to the timing and nature of the revert, I assume that it's the same person. Andrew Englehart (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP seems to be reverting against the advice on the talk page. They are determined to restore non-encyclopedic material. For instance here, restoring for the second time a lengthy direct quote from Rickover's 'Words of wisdom'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:CatcherStorm reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "See DRN noticeboard. There was already previously a list-to-prose template under this section + no changes to the claims were made. "Whitewashing" btw"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Political activities */ Reconverted list into prose. NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WERE MADE TO ANY OF THE CLAIMS, THEY WERE SIMPLY REORDERED."
   2. 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Political activities */ Removed bullet points and fixed spacing errors"
   3. 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Added {{POV}} tag to article (TW)"
3. 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Take the time to read through the reference before mindlessly reverting my edits because you don't like them. The source in question is a heavily opinionated column written in a subjective tone by a subjective author. Putting this source in the lead section attempts to conflate it as fact and not a matter of opinion."
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "removing irrelevant "belorusian" label and moved bumble incident to more appropriate section"
   2. 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "rm biased/opinionated source presented as fact"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 12:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Converting the lead section from list to prose is a perfectly fine edit, one that I spent nearly an hour doing. I am not going to spend my time doing it over again because someone reverted it. If you want to reintroduce language that I removed, you are welcome to do so by editing it into the page."
   2. 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "typo"
6. 10:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Reworked lead section, converted political activities section from list format into prose and ordered them chronologically. Fixed tone in some sentences to comply with WP:NPOV."
7. 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "I am not the only editor who has previously expressed concern over the tone of this article, and I am actively disputing it. The template should remain."
8. 05:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Added {{POV}} tag to article (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"
2. 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"
3. 20:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Bold edit rationale and further discussion to fix NPOV */"

Comments:

Despite multiple editors, warnings and discussions, user continues to edit war instead of engaging (and throwing out personal attacks) or establishing any sort of consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There are three open discussions, which you have barely participated in and offered zero rationale for. @Grayfell: has reverted my edits accusing me of "whitewashing" the article which 1. is a personal attack itself and 2. was brought upon me with zero further explanation. There is also a dispute resolution open at DRN which you have also not bothered participating in. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

CatcherStorm has repeatedly described editors warning them about edit-warring as "cringey." If this is an attempt at a personal attack, it's a nonsensical and rather lame attempt; but it certainly depicts CatcherStorm as being uninterested in complying with policy, as preferring unproductive putative insults to meaningful dialogue, and as utterly dismissive of attempts to change their behavior short of a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• i have nothing to do with your edit war. The only edit I’ve made is restoring a severely broken reference tag. Praxidicae (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• The use was blocked by Primefac x 31h. In response to user's request for unblock, I reset to a partial block, no change in expiration. If disruption resumes, please ping me or reblock if needed.-- Deepfriedokra 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

User:Authordom reported by User:Padavalamkuttanpilla (Result: Blocked)

Page

Sriram Venkitaraman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Authordom (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 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk) to last revision by Authordom"
   2. 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) to 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 05:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "the person is a former ias officer"
   2. 05:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "arrested for killing a journalist"
   3. 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "corrected"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

This is second time disruptive editing.Previously, this page was protected in order to prevent vandalism from this person here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive editing without reaching consensus on the talk page Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Padavalamkuttanpilla:welcome to talk page this is not a property platform to discuss about your vandalism. Authordom (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 days. Authordom (formerly Kutyava) is continuing to change 'infobox person' to 'infobox criminal' in the article on a person who has not been convicted of a crime. This violates WP:BLP. Authordom was warned back in December about his use of this infobox at User talk:Authordom#Edits on Sriram Venkitaraman. He was pointed to the instructions for using the infobox which mention the BLP issue, but he continues regardless. Previous block was 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Melroross reported by User:NormanGear (Result: Partial blocks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [262]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268]

Comments:
This user started to revert content supported by sources. I started a Talk to deal with this user's reversals, and I warned him that he was close to breaking the 3RR rule. Instead of talking and trying to reach a consensus he concentrated on denouncing me for violating the 3RR rule, and the administrator declined his complaint alleging that I have not broken any rules and told Melroross that he should focus on dialogue. Despite this, Melroross has not discussed and has continued to delete information supported by Lead sources of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGear (talk • contribs)

See also the above report by Melroross, WP:COI#Spaniards and Portuguese people pages COI by user by the same editor, and their post to User:Bbb23[269] which Bbb23 reverted with a warning. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

See also Talk and history on both pages where dialogue/discussion/thank occurred from my end. Intro and Lead should not repeat same content and same quotes. NormanGear is inconsistent in the way they edit Portuguese people and Spaniards and appears to have created a Single-purpose account to edit only these two pages. This has been the issue all along. As mentioned repeatedly Third Parties should investigate and find a durable solution. Wikipedia is no one’s and everyone’s, not up to one or two editors to monopolise and use partial editing. Thank you Melroross (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Melroross: Nothing you mentioned in your comment excuses violating the three-revert rule. Why do you think you are exempt from it? —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Both editors were blocked in December for edit warring on what is probably the same issue (respectively one week and 48 hours). I recommend using three month partial blocks for both editors, from Spaniards and Portuguese people. This should still allow them to participate on the talk pages. The alternative is just a continuing escalation in block durations, up to two weeks or even indefinite. Neither party is getting the message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I glanced at this earlier, but I was doing a complicated sock investigation and didn't have time to investigate the edit-warring. However, I glanced at the article history and saw that both editors had violated 3RR and both should be blocked. If it were up to me, I would block both for somewhere between two weeks and a month, and the blocks would be sitewide (oh my, that new term), not partial blocks. I don't want to override you, though, Ed, if you want to use partial blocks, which I freely admit I don't like.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It has already been established by an administrator that I have not committed a violation of the 3RR nor an Edit War in this case. [270] NormanGear (talk •contribs 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You had not violated a 3RR at the time that report was filed. I have not checked whether your further edits violated that brightline rule. At this point, I am leaning toward EdJohnston's proposal for partial blocks. Given Melroross's comment below, I'm almost wondering if a topic ban and interaction ban would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree EdJohnston and C.Fred that Administrators should intervene and I welcome a fair decision on editing blockage for Spaniards and Portuguese people. Because this goes way beyond the 3RR today, the Portuguese people page should be made semi-protected from vandalism and Single-purpose accounts such as this NormanGear and a few others. I have been dedicating precious time for over 5 years now, free-willing and will continue doing so as Wikipedia is a tremendously useful platform of Human knowledge and history. If I am blocked from editing on these two pages, I will be happy with the decision taken by mature and reasonable people. Best regards to all. Melroross (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Resulte: Both editors issued partial blocks for 3 months. They may not edit Spaniards or Portuguese people. The blocks should still allow these two users to access the talk pages and to edit other articles. There has been an acrimonious dispute between these two editors since December. Their dispute has been brought to noticeboards. To get the flavor of their interaction, see Talk:Spaniards and Talk:Portuguese people. since 21 December. One example is a charge of "Systematic hostile conduct and editing harassment". It is especially puzzling to see User:Melroross here because they have a 5-year record of Wikipedia editing and until recently, have never been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I totally agree with the block and as you mentioned, I have never come across a Single-purpose account so intent in their crusade. Their behaviour was pretty clear to me from the offset and on reflection, I should have put and end to this much earlier. I have never been blocked before and probably won’t be again. After this, I am sure the other user finally realised that Wikipedia is an ethical and fair institution. Happy editing! Melroross (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DMacks reported by User: Jfbongarçon (Result: Filer partially blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=14936766 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=33490634
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=34143073
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=73247007
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&offset=20061108142114&limit=50&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&offset=20061108142114&limit=50&action=history [diff]

Comments: Dmacks has been domineering the oscillococcinum article page with unsupported skeptical opinions he thinks are science. Apparently, he doesn't even believe in vaccination or its history based in homeopathy. Apparently he is a specialist in all things scientific. His version of the article is full of political soapboxing he claims is "truth," in complete denigration of other points of view, and this user dismisses any counter-argument as "pseudo-science" or "fringe-science." Apparently this user knows everything about particle science, the quarck, polarity of elementary particles, and knows better that 56 countries put together. Apparently this user is obsessed with this article and has been obsessed with it since 2005 and has been in edit-wars with every other user trying to make the article respectful of a different way of seeing things. I ask that Wikipedia please ban this user completely because I am not sure this user is human. I suspect this user is a bot seeing how rapidly this user remodifies this article constantly, persistently, and tries to warn, block, report every user that disagrees with him. This is the work of a very psychorigid, fascistic way of thinking and is not welcome in this world. Please use your precious intellectual scrutiny for your own government.
Jfbongarçon (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• After reading the rant above, and the edits on the article, I have partially blocked the filing editor indefinitely from the article in question. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Aqşin Abbaslı reported by User:IamNotU (Result: No violation)

Page: Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aqşin Abbaslı (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/928017391/928088952

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/929032126/929280763
2. Special:Diff/929705812/931308010
3. Special:Diff/938039683/938055180

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/930093126/931313168

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic#Conventional and native names

Comments:

Aqşin Abbaslı (see also Agshin Abbasli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly changed Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti in a slow-motion edit war, despite being reverted by several other editors. They haven't responded to multiple warnings and requests for discussion/explanation, and have never left an edit summary nor ever communicated to anyone in any way. They just keep repeating the same edit. I'm not necessarily opposed to the change (see the talk page) but it needs to be done by talk and consenus, not edit-warring. --IamNotU (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• "slow-motion" is an understatement. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:RandomAccount13343413 (Result: Filer blocked as sock)

Page: Template:Campaignbox Persian Gulf Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Campaignbox 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [271]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [272]
2. [273]
3. [274]
4. [275]
5. [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277] (warned in edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Comments:

User has removed the article Israeli airstrikes in Iraq (2019) from 3 related templates (1) Template:Campaignbox Persian Gulf Wars 2) Template:Campaignbox 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis 3) Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) saying it is "unrelated". After I've restored the article in the templates saying its related he removed it from all the 3 again. And accused me at my talk page of vandalizing Wikipedia.[279] WP:NOTVANDALISM WP:BOOMERANG. RandomAccount13343413 (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

He has been previously blocked for edit warring in a related article. RandomAccount13343413 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

1) Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) is not related by any means in the Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Read the Iraqi insurgency article, the 2017 conflict is namely a Iraqi Government(with support of US and allies/Iran) vs ISIS. No Israel role here, on any side. The fact that some events took place in a country in a given time does not means it is related.

2) Persian Gulf Wars Template have no military relation with Israeli Iranian Proxy war. The first revert was made by User:Greyshark09 on a User:KasimMejia edit (Banned user for being a Sockpuppet) without a reason in the edit summary. But its obvious Israeli strikes in Iraq on Iranian forces 2019 are not related to the Persian Gulf Wars. Geographically maybe, but historically in the current context does not. See here
3) Regarding the 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis, the strikes carried out by Israel are not part of US and Saudi Arabia and are part of the Israeli Iranian Proxy war. In resume all the 3 Templates are not related by any means to the Israeli Iranian proxy war, it is a different topic. Recomend any reader and admin to read those articles. Iranian Israeli proxy conflict and war begun years before the Gulf Wars.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked the filer as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Ok.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad on American Broadcasting Company (Results: Stale and malformed)

User:Oknazevad is without question a highly experienced editor and is very well versed in policies, needless to say WP:3RR. He recently began to assert himself at American Broadcasting Company over a personal opinion that specific information being added did not meet the LEDE criteria. Despite not elaborating where the guidelines supported his claim, in addition to more than one editor (me included) arguing the opposite, Oknazevad proceeded to remove the same section of the article not favourable to him:

• 15:24 on 22 Jan - 1st
• 22:07 on 22 Jan - 2nd
• 23:51 on 22 Jan - 3rd
• 00:04 on 23 Jan - 4th
• 05:30 on 23 Jan - 5th inside 24 hours

I then offered him an opportunity to revert himself[280], but he initially deployed the sockpuppetry excuse[281].

I next clarified the error[282] and in doing so, gave him a second opportunity to self-revert but he switched tact on an inconsequential BRD platform. Note however that his very line "Only if the material is left out while the discussion is ongoing" is basically saying "no I will not self-revert". I pointed out the problems with his response and allowed him a third chance to self-revert[283], to which he responded with a personal attack (calling me "full of shit", and trying to argue that a past encounter means it is suddenly invalid for me to take him to task over flagrant breach of WP policies).

As regards the article, he has since reverted on five more occasions although not committing a technical breach within this period, but the point is that this editor has no intention of respecting 3RR and I feel justified in going to AN/I over the personal attack. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This attempt at harassment and retaliation for an old perceived slight is pointless. The IP never edited the article before until he came off a one-year block and immediately wikistalked a topic I was presently involved with in an effort to catch me for my part in his year-long block. He also posted on my talk page after I told him not to. There's no reason to pay any attention to this obvious bad faith post.

As for the subject matter, and the edits themselves, there's clearly a case of redemptions editing by the other user, who has refused to partake in the discussion on the talk page (where there's been zero support) or at his talk page where notices have been posted. (Also, not the only editor to revert him.) oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Stale and malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to his response. Otherwise you could adumbrate how this editor's behaviour has been in keeping with policies, and what damage would he have done had he self-reverted. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ketone16 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warnings)

Page

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ketone16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938044114 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) Go to the talk page to discuss this and your other reverts. We are both at 3 reverts now."
2. 20:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Take your edit war to the talk page and provide your rationales for your edits. Stop reverting people's well-justified edits without providing any explanation."
3. 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938041513 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) The exact GPS coordinates of the person who took one of several videos is not necessary here. The neighborhood is good enough."
4. 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938041752 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) Cited source does not support this interpretation"
5. 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Flight and crash */"

Comments:

Attempted gaming WP:3RR (Ketone16, it's not an entitlement). They seem to have miscounted. Obvious awareness of the 3RR per [284]. The other editor also may have broached 3RR, but some of their reverts are of clearly problematic content (though probably not to the level of vandalism). They also haven't done the same level of wholesale reversion as Ketone16, so I am not filing a reciprocal report at this time. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the article. You are right, I miscounted the reverts (both mine and the other user's) in batches; I thought he/she was at (but not past) the 3 revert limit, which I warned him/her of per Wikipedia best practice, in the edit summary (see above). (And to be fair, I noted I was at the same limit, which is why I requested for the second time that the other editor take the issue to the talk page, which so far has not happened.) I'm not sure how you define wholesale reverting; I only reverted the other user's reversions of my own edits, so we have reverted an equal amount of each other's content. I also don't think that my reversions (or my other edits) have introduced problematic content, with the exception of one mistake I made by looking at the wrong source (which you caught and corrected; thank you). I disagree about the level of reversion of the other editor, who has made quite a few reverts of content by at least three editors since the recent creation of the account, none with any justification in the edit summary or on the talk page, although he/she has been invited to do so. I created a talk page section to discuss the reversions of multiple editors' contributions. Ketone16 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I check the changes in the article from time to time, and I think it needs to be added here that in this edit war, Iamumar.thegeek almost never provided a rationale for his reverts in the edit summary, while Ketone16 did almost every time; Ketone16 also asked for the dispute to be taken to the talk page, twice. That of course can be attributed to the relative inexperience of Iamumar.thegeek but should be taken into account. I also do not like the interpretation that "haven't done the same level of wholesale reversion as Ketone16" - in this case, there is not much difference between more minor reverts and a general one (anyway, per 3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.") I suggest warning both editors, who are perhaps both not that experienced anyway, and let it resolve at the talk page without any other restrictions. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that both parties have stopped the reverts, warnings all around and moving on seems reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ketone16 and User:Iamumar.thegeek are warned not to edit war. No blocks per the above advice of User:VQuakr. User:Iamumar.thegeek could make better use of edit summaries. He has never used the article talk page. If this article causes more trouble, EC protection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

talk The issue is the source of the problem, User:Ketone16 has a history of unreasonable edits, in particular, when the sources are easily verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamumar.thegeek (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've had a few edits undone by User:Ketone16 regarding this page. It should be noted that his edit summaries had been very clear and concise, from that I understood their point and backed away. Another user suggested that better use of the talk pages would be the favoured option, I would agree and he did attempt to engage, Iamumar.thegeek, this way. Some of the undo edits by Iamumar.thegeek made no sense, being purely minor grammar changes, and without any edit summaries these undos almost seem like vandalism to me. Perhaps Ketone16 did break the rule but he seemed to ensuring the article was factual and verifiable. Mine and some of Iamumar.thegeek's edits involved too much assumption even when the verifiable source was clear about those assumptions. What is the best course of action if a user fails to provide edit summaries or engage in the talk, when their undos leave the page lacking? I guess Ketone16 should have approached an Admin for advice and assistance after the first unsubstantiated revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't they both break the rule? Shouldn't they both be here? Seems a bit one sided from here. I am new here so might be missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:92.5.242.47 reported by User:Autumnking2012 (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Joanna Cherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.5.242.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [285]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [286]
2. [287]
3. [288]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [289]

Comments:

I reverted addition of unnecessary non-NPOV content, including addition of image created purely for vandalism/trolling reasons. Joanna Cherry's views on transgender matters are included in the body, do not warrant mention in the lede or info box, and phrases such alleging as person is a 'vile terf' do not belong on Wikipedia, and violate BLP. After 3 reverts by same user, I brought the issue here. My apologies if I have made any mistakes with this form. AutumnKing (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

An admin has now blocked the IP making the edits. Not sure how I close this off. Thank you. AutumnKing (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for blatant BLP violations/vandalism. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rituberidesigns reported by User:ThatMontrealIP (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ritu Beri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 05:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 05:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 05:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "lastet updates"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Ritu Beri."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussed at WP:COIN; user has not responded to any warnings or notices. Multiple (4+?) reverts. Just a regular case of promotional editing and "let's see if we can make this stick by pressing undo repeatedly". Account should be also be blocked for username violation as well as it is the registered name of the company.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Username was blocked by Cullen328. No action needed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)