Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive380

User:EEng and User:TParis reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: EEng unblocked per assurance)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of EEng's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, if you'll take the time to examine the links given earlier you'll see that the situation is quite the reverse of what you're saying. If not, well then believe whatever helps you sleep at night."
 * 2)  "You'll need to carefully read my preceding edit summary (the one beginning "I suggest you review the history before butting in") and follow the links there, noting in particular the page on which those edits were made; and if you still don't understand see  Special:Diff/870935348"
 * 3)  "I suggest you review the history before butting in;this post was arbitrarily removed in violation ofWP:TPO("Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed,but normally you should stop if there is any objection"&there is nothing here qualifying for an exception to that)prior to the thread being archived.SeeSpecial:Diff/870726899,Special:Diff/870743524,Special:Diff/870787911.This is an entirely serious comment on the discussion,whether U see it or not"
 * 4)  ""The thread is closed"--followon comments are routinely appended to "closed" threads;a random editor's decision to close doesn't bind everyone else;you may not see the value but that's just you."This is an admin action on an admin noticeboard"--yes&admins are more than just normal users w/mops and buckets&have sergeant-like authority.But seriously,you must be joking.See links in my prior edit summary&if you want to come out of semiretirement you may need to go back to admin school."
 * 5)  "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Restoring post removed by an admin who needs to review WP:TPO and WP:ATTACK (by which he probably means WP:RPA, which he should also review) and who could, I suppose, open an ANI thread on the point and see what happens. Silently removing, according to one's personal estimate of what's helpful, the posts of other editors in good standing is not on."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 870726899 by TParis (talk) ... in your blinkered, impoverished view of what constitutes helpful, perhaps. But luckily the rest of us aren't bound by that."
 * 7)  "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ +"


 * Diffs of TParis' reverts:
 * 1)  "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Per WP:NPA. The thread is closed and this is an admin action on an admin noticeboard."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 870743524 by EEng (talk) Rm per WP:ATTACK"
 * 3)  "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Not remotely helpful and most definitely not needed"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Please see User talk:Dennis Brown


 * Comments:

This is an odd situation and I'm not sure if it's better to report here or at ANI, but it is an edit war so here we are. EEng and got themselves into a dispute about adding an image of a pie eating contest (my description) to a closed ANI thread, which in the midst of the dispute has been archived. A number of administrators have asked EEng if adding this image to the archive is really something they want to be WP:POINTy about, and it's evident as this revert war drags into its second day that they do. There's a lot of "he started it!" happening here, I've already reverted once myself, this needs an uninvolved admin to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Admin that keeps removing ANi comments needs the admonishment. EEng is entitled to comment. Pretty lame to call his comment a personal attack and lamer still to bring this to AN3. Surely there is some pressing Admining to somewhere that is more pressing. Ivanvector I respect your judgement normally so I'm surprised to see you file this report. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't know who's "to blame"—often in edit wars, everyone is—but, maaaan, this needs to go straight to WP:LAME.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable to just block? EEng is well over 3RR, and obviously intending to continue. But there's the allegation that they're defending the 'pedia from rouge admins, so I think this needs wider attention. Also, please don't use "lame" like this, I'm pretty sure that "weak" would have got your point across without the ableist slur. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, that shortcut is a conundrum, isn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice Lpac use the word as well :D ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added TParis and their edit-warring diffs to the report, to be fair. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Trout both and SN54129 is spot-on. This needs a mention at WP:LAME. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The stupidity of the edit war is really no excuse. EEng is well, well beyond 3RR here and shows no sign of being willing to stop, so blocked for a week (I did this at RFPP before seeing this report).  TParis only seems to have made three reverts, so, huge trout to them for getting involved in the mess, but no block will be forthcoming from me as they stopped behind the "bright line".  EEng did not.  Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , a week? Really? &#x222F; WBG converse 15:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I thought a week was right-in-line for a third edit-warring/3RR block. Courcelles (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , those 3RR blocks were 4 years ago. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very difficult to argue against that, I must admit. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was hardly in article main space? Does context/ location count for nothing in bright line enforcement? I'm not sure who was finding that little tiff disruptive. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , replying to WingedBlades, Yes, they were, and if this had been four reverts I would have gone for a lesser block, likely 72 hours again. But 3RR was crossed significantly worse than one extra revert. Besides, 3RR is such a core rule around here, I expect anyone ever blocked for it to have it imprinted in their head, much less someone blocked twice before over it.  We may pretend awareness of Discretionary Sanctions wears off after a year, but 3RR has no such legal fiction, nor should it.  Courcelles (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that miscellaneous blocks arising from 3RR et al from 4 years ago, in case of a heavily-active contributor, ought to have much/any relevance.
 * If Courcelles/anybody had shown that Eng is a frequent visitor to 3RRN (and has a reputation for disruptive edit-warring) but has escaped without sanctions till date, I would certainly be much more convinced.
 * But, then one can certainly disagree............:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 15:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (+1) to MartinEvans but then, Courcelles is correct too:-) Overall, one of the most ridiculous hills to sacrifice one's editing privileges upon. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All EEng needs to do to be unblocked is promise not to continue this edit war, . That's it.  (Yes, I know his version is currently the active version)  If he does that, I'll actually fully unblock, not reduce the block to something lesser. That's my promise ot you, .  You up for it?  Courcelles (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (+1) to MartinEvans but then, Courcelles is correct too:-) Overall, one of the most ridiculous hills to sacrifice one's editing privileges upon. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All EEng needs to do to be unblocked is promise not to continue this edit war, . That's it.  (Yes, I know his version is currently the active version)  If he does that, I'll actually fully unblock, not reduce the block to something lesser. That's my promise ot you, .  You up for it?  Courcelles (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * disagree with adding this incident to WP:LAME. That page was supposed to be humorous as the header notice says, but it has now become just LAME and boring due to such additions. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, shouldn't the heading for this thread now be: Result: User:EEng blocked for one week? Or was that just a wholly unconnected coincidence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Courcelles has lifted the one-week block of User:EEng per a talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One concerning thing that doesn't seem to have been raised yet, is that EEng appears to think that 4 reverts within 20 hours is not a breach of the bright line rule because 3 of the reverts occurred before midnight (his/her time) and one after: "I made two reverts at ANI, three at ANI/Archive996 (yesterday), and one today. So no crossing of the bright line". That is not the meaning of the rule. The first revert at the archive occurred at 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) and the fourth one at 14:32, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC). That is a breach of the bright-line. DrKay (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that EEng violated WP:3RR with their edits of the ANI archive file. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:68.197.237.168 reported by User:Plummer (Result: IP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=870893435

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:

This user has a history of being abusive and was banned several times. He's at it again. Here are his threats posted on my talk page:

Knock it off with the constant useless overly detailed information. I will keep on reverting if you do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Wikia site and not a fan site. Am I well understood? No? Okay, game on then. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain the plot by how exactly? Elaborate, kiddo. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought...no answer. I've reverted your edits. Every plot written is suppose to be between 400-700 words or simplistic as possible. Get over yourself. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't give two cents. 400-700 words. Period. This is not a fanboy and fangirl site. You want to continue playing? Game on, brother. Also learn how to cite your sources properly and sign at the end of each sentence. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Look here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that you took a look by clicking on the Wikipedia guideline I linked above, don't let me catch you messing with the Pelham 123 article again. You got that? It is a feature film and as per rule, plot summaries should be between 400-700 words or below. Simple as that. Have a good night. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay? I’ll take care of the plot summary within the article so it doesn’t exceed that number. If I ever catch your full of crap self messing with the article, I will personally make you miserable. Do we have an understand of one another? Yes? Now gtfo of my talk page and the article for good, rpa. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor: IP editor is failing to be WP:CIVIL, but their point is valid: Plummer's plot summary is excessive and not an improvement over the more concise summary favored by the IP. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

See edit sequence here: Plummer (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User 68.197.237.168 had also deleted my original additions to the Production and critical reactions sections, then pasted them in as his own work.
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866055295
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866055588
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866057654
 * Result: The IP is warned for personal attacks. No block of the IP for edit warring since they reverted their own change. On the question of plot length, it's possible the IP is correct, but if they continue with threats as in the above report ("I will personally make you miserable"), they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IP subsequently blocked for disruptive user page editing and violations of WP:NPA.  General Ization Talk  02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That followed this charming edit summary Moriori (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Virgilisalive reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* The Oxford Program */"
 * 2)  "Restoring maliciously removed content."
 * 3)  "Restored much needed missing information."
 * 4)  "Informational"
 * 1)  "/* The Oxford Program */"
 * 2)  "Restoring maliciously removed content."
 * 3)  "Restored much needed missing information."
 * 4)  "Informational"
 * 1)  "Restored much needed missing information."
 * 2)  "Informational"
 * 1)  "Informational"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also further discussed via my own talk page and and pre-warned about 3rr before formally, followed by user violating it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Virgilisalive is a new user and, IMO, could be working in good faith and just need some more guidance. As such, I'm not going to block, but I have ECP'ed Thomas More College of Liberal Arts for a week to allow them to get a better feel for this place.  Please stop posting anything copyrighted, and do not revert when it is removed.  Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Virgilisalive is warned per the statement of User:Courcelles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles & EdJohnston, Thank you for the warning. When the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts page is edited in the future it will be absolutely void of paraphrasing or promotion. I do hope that a non-biased assessment is given to anything I write. I will rely on your honesty and judgement. Yours, Virgilisalive (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:CBG17 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  has again removed sourced text against consensus without discussion.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871017873 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 870940972 by Garretka (talk) That is not encyclopaedic the references given are just copies of everything in the table but in basic form so why state it twice in a less advanced way"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 870937008 by Garretka (talk) The paragraph is awful if you're going to put it in there at least clean it up"
 * 5)  "/* Airlines and destinations */"
 * 6)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 1)  "/* Passenger */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) There has been extensive discussion on creating better quality prose content at the article talkpage in which this editor has not participated.


 * Comments:

Has persistently removed referenced prose content, against talk page consensus, in favour of original research and linkspamming. The editor has been warned for similar edits on many occasions. Charles (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You're the one removing sourced content yourself, the paragraph was poorly written and had original research in it that you keep removing on other parts of the page so why are you contradicting yourself. CBG17 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you have such a problem with referenced historical prose content?Charles (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * – 4 days. The article just came off a week of full protection on 24 November, and CBG17 has reverted six times since then. The article on Sofia Airport has so far been fully protected six times in 2018. This is a level of disruption where admins may be tempted to escalate their response. Anybody who has strong feelings about this article can use the methods of WP:Dispute resolution. You are free to open WP:RFCs without getting into any trouble at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:190.158.26.48 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked by Jayron 32</b> 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC) )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "/* Film */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Other pages were edit warred on well; furthermore, IP is accusing a user that is reverting their edits correctly of vandalism. They have been warned on the AIV report of that user that they are running the risk of a boomerang block. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see this, but investigating based on the disruption at AIV, this guy has had a block coming for a long time. I gave him a 1 month vacation.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As Miki Filigranski has noted themselves on the talk page, the article is under 1RR. In reverting to a version from 3 days ago on two occasions within 24 hours, Miki Filigranski undid the substantive edits by IP, as well as edits by some other IPs and editors and. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On 24th November I made a revert and called the IPs to take it to the talk page as they removed an excessive amount of sourced content, some of which is not made by a proper understanding of the editing policy. They did it on 26 November , however, in the same time they made a revert , and another one 28th November . So, the only editors who ignored the WP:BRD process and went to make WP:POINT reverts, starting somekind of an edit-war for which are accusing me (for which I am speechless), are two IPs addresses. The other editors edits do not count. We are talking about IPs edit to which already was made a revert by a confirmed account (me).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Three small points of clarification: 1) this is an editing sanctions violation; 2) I'm very clear what constitutes WP:PRIMARY & WP:OR; 3) Filigranski has a history of misunderstanding policy (use of secondary sources), WP:TE, and reverting edits they disagree with without discussion. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the IPs are engaging the confirmed editor's report and seemingly have a better understanding of policy than most of the editors (half-joking, but it's additional evidence for sock-puppetry by some more experienced editor), my misunderstanding of policy was settled and doesn't have anything to do with the current issue, first who started with malice accusation were the IPs (starting it since 25th November accusing me for personal agenda, for which I warned them talk page is not for WP:FORUM commentary), and I am engaged in the discussion, but first and foremost the article must be protected so there won't be any POINT disruptive reverts by the IPs until the discussion reached it's consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * additional evidence, another WP:1RR by same two weeks ago, this kind of editing is having a chilling effect on article development.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP is again intentionally ignoring the context in which the respective editor which was reverted was again avoiding to follow BRD and discussion process with multiple editing policy violations, there was no "chilling effect on article development" (and later part of the edits was included, also for the discussion see here). It seems the IP has something against me, is it a sock-puppet by PeterTheFourth or Acousmana, they both edited the article in question and have a very similar introduction in their user page ("Hello world!" and "Hello!"), as well made accusations against me...? This should be checked out per WP:DUCK.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * re:"ignoring the context": where does the WP:1RR sanction offer allowances for contextual abuse of said rule? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours for 1RR violation, per the two reverts listed in this complaint (18:39 on 28 November and 09:58 on 29 November). The 1RR restriction was imposed by User:Swarm under WP:ARBBLP. User:Miki Filigranski was alerted to the discretionary sanctions on 11 August 2018. Miki Filigranski has 177 edits to this article. His edits are frequent enough that if he is not being careful to follow policy it can interfere with article development. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [NA - 1RR]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note, the other report had not been filed when started writing this up, just seeing now, forgive the double posting: WP:1RR violation, user ignoring discretionary sanctions in order to hamper page development. Consistently using BRD as excuse to revert constructive, noncontentious, and well sourced edits, also consistently using edit summaries to claim others are engaged in disruptive editing & edit warring when no evidence for such exists. A number of constructive edits stood without objections or reversions until said user appears. Editor is pointedly restricting article development. Previous issues concerning WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY content were flagged, editor chose to ignore this, failed to address diffs, and again cited BRD as justification, then called for "page protection" to shut discussion down, yet again citing BRD and making accusations of edit-warring without evidence. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that the IPs, which the editor PeterTheFourth supported against me and made edits at the talk page in similar time period as the IPs, as well both made the report above against me , the fact the IPs are suspiciously citing Wikipedian editing policy for substantiation in the edit summaries and talk page, rises a suspicion we are dealing with sock accounts of the mentioned editor, or someone else. For most of the reply see the report above, also, discretionary sanction was primarily ignored by the IPs. I am not hampering article's development, there exist several issue with their substantial edit and for that already exist a discusion, however, they ignored both the BRD, discussion to make POINT reverts. The BRD process wasn't used as an exuse for anything, this is blatant lying and WP:PERSONAL attack. I intenionally warned them about the BRD process because I predicted they IPs would ignore it and would start an edit-war, as we alredy had in recent revision history when IPs are ignoring previous discussions about influences inclusion in the infobox. The page protection was not called out to shut the discussion at all (another PERSONAL attack), yet because of exactly such scenario when IPs are gaming the system, trying to fool everyone around their undertanding and citing of editing policy is correct, making reverts on 1RR article so confirmed editors seemingly cannot revert them, to make chaos as there is no stable revision. The current revision for specific information had WP:SILENCE consensus for a very long time. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * notice again, in alleging sock-puppetry, user is reverting in the first instance to accusations of bad faith. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, note that both the IP and the editor decided to report me for 1RR when I first warned the IP about the 1RR itself .--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * inversion of reality here, you were reported for WP:1RR in accordance with having committed a sanctions violation, not because you told someone not to violate WP:1RR after you had done it yourself. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't understnad what inversion the IP is talking about. I didn't say that all. Again pointless FORUM commentary without any facts straight, only accusations and putting of their words in other people mouths. Instead of engaging in article's discussion about the content seemingly the IPs (or some editor in disguise) found more constructive wasting everyone's time edit warring, reporting confirmed editors, and so on. Get a life.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * re: Miki "I didn't say that all" -- Miki: "note that both the IP and the editor decided to report me for 1RR when I first warned the IP about the 1RR itself" -- like I said, reported for the sanctions violation, the decision to do so had nothing to do with you "warning" anybody about anything. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, I did not say nor meant that at all. No wonder for your WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CTDAPE, WP:LISTEN symptoms.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * re: "I did not say nor meant that at all" -- can you explain this diff then where you said precisely what is quoted above? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I already answered.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It seems like the IP has a point. The 1RR restriction was added on 11 August. You have numerous violations of 1RR since then. 216.163.247.2 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, another IP defending an IP, again with ignorant accusations against a confirmed editor. It really seems I stepped on somebody's toes and wants a revenge.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Already blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:211.27.126.189 (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

I'm not sure why this is happening, but MaxBrowne2 seems to be edit warring on his own talk page, with the actual diffs are posted above. I was thinking of notifying him about a series of recent edits related to a chess article. He could have commented out a part or parts of the article at in one set of commenting brackets but used multiple of them in that place. He deleted the section on his talk page where I talked about it without replying, not including an edit summary for either of the 2 (I created a new one, BTW, after the 1st revert). I don't know the logic behind this, especially when edit summaries aren't included, but seems as if such things he won't accept having on his talk page. I'm not being rude nor am I trying to violate a rule or policy, but I think this matter needs discussing here. Thank you!211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: The notice on the talk page of the reported user was deleted. I'm not sure if me re-posting it is effective, maybe someone else should do it?
 * There is no violation.  is allowed to remove your comment from his talk page without any discussion.  If he does you should not restore it.  His removal is evidence that he has read it.  ~ GB fan 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me that a discussion isn't necessary relating to removing others' comments on own talk page, but why remove it (at least I learnt something new!)?211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand why you removed the above comment by the OP. ~ GB fan 12:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP has been previously warned to refrain from restoring messages on other users' talk pages. This should be a WP:BOOMERANG, especially given the previous block. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean another message, since the one you posted a link to is one someone could get for edit warring in general. Plus, I don't know why you said I was spamming your talk page, so I don't understand your logic at all.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2.27.225.41 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

See comments
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See comments
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Exact same pattern at Ralph Breaks the Internet.
 * 3RR warning given to user:
 * Advice given to user:

Dorsetonian (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. The user continued to revert the article after this report was filed. So far the IP is only concerned about release dates of films in the UK, and it appears that others don't agree with his changes. If all his edits continue to get reverted and he takes no notice, a longer block may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:190.247.103.23 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871423423 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) Yes, they announced the ninth season for the continuity of the series!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871419955 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) STOP IT!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 871407723 by Benjamin Nilsson (talk) RKO OUTTA NOWHERE!!!! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 871033735 by SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) RKO OUTTANOWHERE!! AGAIN AND AGAIN!!"
 * 5)  "Oops, i fix it."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871033735 by SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) RKO OUTTANOWHERE!! AGAIN AND AGAIN!!"
 * 2)  "Oops, i fix it."
 * 1)  "Oops, i fix it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Regular Show (season 8). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * IP warned about 3RR here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The behaviour resumed today, and the IP was blocked by . —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And more,, thanks to fellow Tide fan and Admin of Good Sense . Drmies (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, this one is a constant nuisance. I think the first time I saw this person was  from EvergreenFir, and I've been doing range blocks ever since.  Hard to believe it's almost been two years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rs21867 reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871423198 by MPS1992 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Fixed"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 871412376 by Chewings72 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gulf War. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The article edited also appears to be covered by discretionary sanctions. MPS1992 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have invited the user to self-revert. I'm waiting to see if he engages or not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Rs21867 is warned they may be blocked if they edit the article again before getting consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ghnatiuk reported by User:RexxS (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Page history up to today

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

All of the dispute has taken place in edit summaries until I found time today to explain the issues on the article talk page.

Comments:

This probably shouldn't rise to the level of a sanction because I've only just found time to explain the errors in Ghnatiuk's additions on the talk page. Nevertheless I believe that Ghnatiuk has wilfully tried to game the system by forcing their unsourced changes into the lead of the article four times - the fourth after my EW3 warning. They have edit-warred against two editors: and myself. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * for a week. I agree,, this doesn’t merit sanctioning a brand new editor over, and thanks for trying to explain the issues to them. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:BenzoInfo reported by User:Doc James (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The user has also reverted my talk page posts. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * have been observing the article in question and I must agree with Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Disruptive newbie editor has agreed to stop edit warring and read up on our sourcing guidelines and policies. They wrote “OK I'll work on that later on, in a few days.” in response to my request to stay away from the article and read WP:MEDRS or be blocked. I suggest reading this, User_talk:BenzoInfo discussion for fuller picture.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * By C.Fred. Vanamonde (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Yuchitown reported by User:ramapoughnative (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have spoken to this user before who insists on changing the working of a fact. Based on the Recognition by the state of NJ, The Ramapough "ARE" descendents of the local indigenous population. The Ramapough and two other tribes were recognized as Indian tribes in 1980 by the state of New Jersey by Resolution 3031. The New Jersey citation read:

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (the Senate concurring): 1. That the Ramapough Mountain People of the Ramapough Mountains of Bergen and Passaic counties, descendants of the Iroquois and Algonquin nations, are hereby designated by the State of New Jersey as the Ramapough Indians.[10]

The further proof is the recognition by our sister nations. The Munsee Delaware and the Stockbridge Munsee of which i have documentation stating such.

He states i'm pushing a POV.. I am stating fact supported by the State of New Jersey govt body. thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched Ramapough Mountain Indians since August 3, 2018, so I have no idea what user:Ramapoughnative is on about. S/he did fail to properly notify me about this report, but Wikipedia alerted that my name was mentioned. No, I never made three reverts in a 24-hour period. Yes, the organization is state-recognized by New Jersey, but regarding other claims: typing with scare quotes and in all caps are not compelling substitutes for verifiable, published secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown


 * , Yuchitown hasn't edited this page for months. Please be more careful with your reports in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:173.68.66.176 reported by User:Jcc (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

NOTE: I have not warred at all. I noticed there was no mention of Altucher's podcast on his wikipedia page. Upon research I noticed quite a few inappropriate edit and did further research. I am not a wikipedia editor and am just a fan. There is a COI between David Gerard and James Altucher. David Gerard has repeatedly written about Altucher on his (David's) blog and should not be allowed to edit the "James Altucher" Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.66.176 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not what a WP:COI is - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871713117 by Jcc (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871696526 by David Gerard (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Note 1RR is in effect, warning placed by David Gerard here
 * 2)   "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on James Altucher. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

General sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies is in place, IP was warned. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Altucher article gets occasional IPs filling it with puffery, this is the latest and should be treated accordingly. The refs are also unacceptable non-RSes for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP's still at it, with personal attacks - could someone uninvolved please have a glance at this one? - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected James Altucher due to the poor sourcing and general puffery concerns for three months. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked this specific IP for 48 hours. Courcelles (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rathfelder reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Agreement)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
 * 2)  (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
 * 3)  (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
 * 4)  (reverting removal of Tom Watson's support for the diet)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on  Aseem Malhotra. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I am still working on the article. Malhotra is a controversial figure. I am endeavouring to produce a balanced article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: No block, since the user agreed (on their own talk page) to wait for a prior talk page consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:109.153.226.234 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: IP blocked for 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872001461 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871995856 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 871987540 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 757431177 by Davey2010 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Katie Griffiths. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I originally removed unsourced content (her date of birth and schools attended), This IP has repeatedly reverted without any sort of explanation,

Whilst technically my edit is "disputed" I don't believe BRD applies here as I'm simply removing unsourced content (and those reinserting it should include a source)),

The IP is also now following me on another article where I reverted a completely different IP, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Went to AIV due to the constant removal of this report where they've now been blocked for 7 days by Widr. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Qashto reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is a vandalism warning, do not undo my changes again.  Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Undid revision 872033712 by Bradv (talk)"
 * 2)  "You have been flagged for violating Wikipedia's community guidelines.  Undid revision 872033335 by Seraphim System (talk)"
 * 3)  "I will not debate whether or not Stefan is a white supremacist.  It is obvious.  Stop undoing my revision to this page or I will flag you.  Undid revision 872032500 by Bradv (talk)"
 * 4)  "Fixed by citing a reputable source, The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group of civil rights lawyers responsible for expert analysis of hate groups, who identify Stefan as a white supremacist."
 * 5)  "Updated bio to include white supremacy to the topics Stefan discusses, referenced a recent tweet in which he claims the white race as the superior race.  "Over thousands of years, they (White Europeans) became smarter and wiser through suffering. They made the modern world."  Stefan considers the white race smarter than other races and this blatant racism should be the first thing people read about on his wiki page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of defamatory content on Stefan Molyneux. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Stefan Molyneux. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

BLP violation; edit warring after final warning. Brad v 🍁 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to report this but Brad beat me to it, I agree that this is a BLP violation and reverting has continued past the 3RR warning. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User qashto here. I have been given no reason other than defamation as to why my edits should not stand. I cited the Southern Poverty Law Center a reputable source written by civil rights lawyers. Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. He is open about his view that the white race is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qashto (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:BoogieFreeman reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor is constantly removing the content from the lead which is reliably sourced in the Luka Modrić (as well Messi–Ronaldo rivalry) section. He is constantly denying at both the article and user talk page to be removing any sourced content, he did not provide any (valid) reason for the removal, and is accusing another editor for some agenda (WP:PERSONAL). He simultaneously opened a discussion, per my initiative in the edit summary, and violated the 3RR, hence did not even follow basic reasoning and discussion process. Please stop this and revert to previous revision. Note: There's a strange duplicate inclusion of already existing +3,000 bytes of infobox information in his last three reverts, it is not the disputed content, but seems like a server error or something else.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - 3 days. Though the two editors are constantly reverting one another and there is some mention of a dispute on the talk page, neither party has obtained a consensus there to support their changes. (There is only an exchange of criticism). Consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is hard for an outsider to have any idea of what this dispute is about, so a better explanation on Talk would be good. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Arup1234 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other platforms */"
 * 2)  "/* Other platforms */"
 * 3)  "/* Other platforms */"
 * 4)  "/* Other platforms */"
 * 5)  "/* Other platforms */"
 * 1)  "/* Other platforms */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Skype. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

No discussion from editor after two other editors and myself have reverted their addition (one of the reverting editors indicating that the updated source the editor is using to replace a dead link source is not reliable). MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Arup1234 has already been WP:INDEFed by Admin Luk from looks of it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:HershieimerHertz reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

3RR warning: User talk:HershieimerHertz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An unregistered editor using multiple IP addresses (e.g., 73.52.3.159, 2601:281:c503:6612:45ce:7bee:e9d6:6302) has been the other participant in this edit war. The article was semi-protected for a week last month but the edit war resumed after the semi-protection expired. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. Please use the talk page to work out the remaining issues. Report again if turns out that there are registered editors who continue to revert without discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  and
 * 2)  and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor is aware of the 1RR on the article, as I've posted on his talk page, but he refused to self-revert. w umbolo  ^^^  10:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * First diffs (under '1') appear to be same revert. Second diffs appear to be reverting inclusion of pretty contentious material - linking subject of article to terrorist groups based on 'The Daily Caller', which is not a very reliable source. I think a BLP exception is more than reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The last diff definitely doesn't have an obvious BLP justification. The diff you're talking about is arguably justifiable, even though it was discussed on the talk page. However, if we ignore that one, we're still left with two separate reverts which have no justification to ignore 1RR. w umbolo   ^^^  12:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The reporting user is aware that their edit I reverted is either an inadvertent or an intentional misrepresentation of the reliable sources, and that misrepresentation is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Their edit changes the well-sourced factual statement that Sarsour was violently threatened on social media into a claim by Sarsour which clearly is intended to cast doubt upon Sarsour's victimization, in violation of our fundamental responsibility to get the facts right. As discussed by Black Kite, Wumbolo failed to properly reflect the sources in a way which directly impugns the biographical subject. Now having had their error or misrepresentation of the source corrected, Wumbolo has not thanked me for correcting their error or apologized for their misrepresentation — no, they have come running to ANEW and crying "1RR!" This seems entirely upside down and backwards. As Black Kite notes, Wumbolo's edit was factually false and in being false, it violated several policies and directly harmed the article subject. My edit merely replaced the status quo which was policy-compliant, supported by the sources and non-harmful. I told them this on my talk page, yet still they come running here. Wumbolo apparently desperately wants me to be blocked for fixing his biographical-subject-damaging fuckup merely because I fixed several other fuckups that day?
 * Is there to be any punishment for Wumbolo, who either can't read sources (and thus shouldn't be editing biographies) or intentionally misrepresented the content of the sources in their edit (and thus shouldn't be editing Sarsour's biography)? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The first two diffs are two consecutive edits. Yes, they are reverting two consecutive edits by Icewhiz, but it could have been done in one edit. I think blocking for this would be harsh, frankly.
 * The third is a revert on BLP grounds, and I think it has merit. Whilst the Daily Caller is not a great source, it actually casts doubt on the material added - "While it is unclear if Salah and Linda are related (though they share the same surname)..." and the GMBDW source admits they cannot substantiate it either (look at the URL), which means that even the NYP source may be flaky.  It's something that needs to be discussed on the talkpage, and per BLP should be removed until there is consensus to include, which I suspect would need better sourcing.
 * Which leaves us with this. Is it a revert? Yes.  Is it a correct edit? Yes, because the sources clearly say she was attacked on social media, not that she claimed she was.  Despite being correct, it is still a second revert inside 24h, and therefore technically blockable.


 * I would invite further comment from other admins. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My analysis lines up with 's, in that this case is technically actionable, but I am disinclined to block for it, and instead warn NorthBySouthBaranof to please be more careful in the future. Courcelles (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid any confusion, NorthBySouthBaranof's version of the article with regards to harassment is supported by only one sentence in only one reliable source. As I have noted on his talk page, both Washington Post articles attribute all other harassment claims to Sarsour, including death threats and doxxing, and so do the New York Times, which are cited by WaPo. I do not regret reporting him, because of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior both above and on his talk page, in the form of WP:IDHT, including proposing multiple sanctions against me. If I was in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mood, I would propose a topic ban and a one-way IBAN, but I'm never in that mood, so I only care about 1RR being respected. And no, I don't simply violate BLP, especially WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but I'm not going to act as if I was offended by NBSB. w umbolo   ^^^  15:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You screwed up. Stop attacking the editor who corrected you and just own it. --Calton | Talk 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably meant to say this to NBSB. w umbolo   ^^^  16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two admins who commented above state that this case is technically actionable. User:NorthBySouthBaranof was taking some liberties and was risking a block, but I would close this with no action for now. He seems to be overstating what he can do in defence of BLP, at least under the limitations of WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:NorthBySouthBaranof is warned that his reverts on this article may not be protected by the BLP exception. One of the reverts in question was this one. The fact that you disagree with others about the exact description of the harrassment she suffered does not give you license to keep reverting in a case where actual defamation is not present. Interpreting sources correctly is a job for editor consensus, unless we are talking about unsourced defamation. For example, there are occasionally some bad edits that are so blatant that they qualify for instant removal by any editor. It does not defame Sarsour when Wikipedia says that she *reported* she was harrassed online, even when a thorough study of the sources might justify a stronger statement. The stronger statement can be worked out through normal editor consensus and does not call for unilateral reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Typ932 reported by User:FF9600 (Result: )
Pages: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Alfa Romeo GT:
 * Alfa Romeo Brera and Spider:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Alfa Romeo GT:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Alfa Romeo Brera and Spider:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Asking user Stepho-wrs for assistance
 * Alfa Romeo GT Talkpage discussing the issue

Comments:

I know that technically Typ932 is not completely in violation of 3RR, but it comes to the point, I feel, of abuse. Typ932 is now reverting any changes I make to ANY Alfa Romero article if it relates to a table (additional examples not reported above, , ). User refuses to accept class="wikitable", MOS:COLOR, or MOS:FONTSIZE standards, ignoring any further discussion, and just harassing me at this point. #FF9600 talk 04:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:223.24.20.21 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872115214 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)You didn’t explain anything in the first page. You just edited it for personal reasons to how you like it. Now You need to expian How Titles are not necessary for such Notable Famous People here"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872114942 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)I want evidences that you own this page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 872015520 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)you don’t own the page Can Not Edit to how you like"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Titles */ new section"


 * Comments:

Repeatedly passing personal commentary and edit-warring without posting on talk page, where I started a discussion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:Cleatcoma1 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: protected page (his admin friends are helping him)

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

Comments:

(childish whine by sock removed per WP:DENY) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
 * Get a load of this: Sockpuppet investigations/SacredGeometry333/Archive. Coltsfan (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cleatcoma1 has been blocked per WP:SOCK and reverting/undoing edits made by sock puppets used to WP:EVADE are considered to be an exception to 3RR per item 3 of WP:NOT3RR. Moreover, Cleatcoma1's comment about Coltsfan being helped by his admin friends fails to mention the reason why Patriota as well as some other articles have been protected: extensive sock puppetry and block evasion. This is not the first AN3 filed against Coltsfan by one of these socks; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive379 for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And the boomerang said, "BOOM!"-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/115.133.122.243 and Special:Contributions/115.133.122.140 reported by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maroon_5&diff=872121273&oldid=872116664

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/872138808
 * 2) Special:Diff/872138564
 * 3) Special:Diff/872126071
 * 4) Special:Diff/872125406

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/872148759

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:


 * The two IPs are the same person for sure. is engaged as well (Special:Diff/872139605). Their edits are reverted by a few users, mainly because of section blanking. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 13:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Ymblanter. I'm also considering some IP blocks . Blocked Special:Contributions/115.133.122.0/24 for a week. There is a large set of articles related to the Maroon 5 band and it would be tedious to have to semiprotect all of them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:CBG17 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872055892 by Charlesdrakew (talk) no consensus to remove your own personal choice"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871998051 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Re added the routes you removed with no real explanation, if you're going to remove future routes remove them all not half instead of contradicting yourself all the time, you're doing it to annoy editors who actually want to improve the page and keep it up to date"
 * 3)  "/* Airlines and destinations */"
 * 1)  "/* Airlines and destinations */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sofia Airport. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Resumption of warring over same content on unblocking. Repeatedly removes text and references arrived at by talkpage consensus without joining the discussion. Charles (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – Indefinite. Long term edit warring at Sofia Airport and no effort to negotiate. The last block of CBG17 was due to an earlier report here. The Sofia Airport page has been fully protected six times in 2018. Any admin may lift this block if they become persuaded that CBG17 will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:110.224.53.139 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked by User:Alexf for 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed biased religious content from biased sources"
 * 2)  "Deleted content sourced from biased media stories and wrong quotations removed.Inaccurate content.unnecessary to profile."
 * 3)  "Removed content unnecessary to profile and out of context"
 * 4)  "Deleted unnecessary to profile and out of content."
 * 5)  "Deleted out of context content"
 * 6)  "Deleted unnecessary to profile and out of context content"
 * 7)  "Deleted unnecessary and out of context content for profile"
 * 8)  "Deleted wrong and out of context information"
 * 9)  "Deleted Biased information collected from biased sources."
 * 1)  "Deleted unnecessary and out of context content for profile"
 * 2)  "Deleted wrong and out of context information"
 * 3)  "Deleted Biased information collected from biased sources."
 * 1)  "Deleted Biased information collected from biased sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tanushree Dutta. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tanushree Dutta. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tanushree Dutta. (TW)"

Attempt:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Broke the page in the process, and is completely ignoring WP:BRD despite attempts to get them to discuss - they have also not tried to initiate discussion either. Claims accurate information to be "unneccesary", "biased", "religious", "out of context", and outright "wrong", despite multiple sources in article claiming the contrary. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also a lot more reverts made by the reported user now. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:FreeSpeechGuy reported by User:Masebrock (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A back-and-forth has been going on for days, I tried to move it to the Talk Page, but the editor repeatedly reverts to his proposed changes without any consensus reached. I need to some serious dispute resolution, but first it would be good to put a halt to all the reverting. The editor is new and seems generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies.--Masebrock (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is intentionally misleading. It is Masebrock who has the proposed changes. He was first asked to stop making his unilateral changes. He's being sneaky.FreeSpeechGuy (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording that I restored has been in place from 2012 to June 2018, when the IP reverts began. This is hardly "proposing changes".--Masebrock (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:194.80.232.19 reported by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Well your reasons are trivial. No information was removed rather was added. Undid revision 872280267 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
 * 2)  "What exactly was not constructive about my edit? Maybe you should view with an open mind or try to broaden your stretch of imagination...just a thought? Undid revision 872279789 by Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 872279631 by Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk)"
 * 4)  "you sound extremely mercurial and seem to have all the time in world.. my edit contains important information relevant to the page. Undid revision 872184526 by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk)"
 * 5)  "No vandalism as evidence shows otherwise. Undid revision 871872180 by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Looks like block evasion by . In which case, Abelmoschus is 3RR exempt. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * for block evasion, and article protected for a month to cut down on this stuff. Courcelles (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:71.198.190.204 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872207973 by Womenknow (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872207895 by Valenciano (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid vandalism 872206759 by Valenciano (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism 872206598 by Valenciano (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 872206317 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 872204554 by Tlclark94 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 872199366 by 131.187.243.108 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 872199142 by 131.187.243.108 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 872196363 by 216.165.95.150 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid vandalism 871952318 by Mackteague (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872199142 by 131.187.243.108 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872196363 by 216.165.95.150 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid vandalism 871952318 by Mackteague (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eli Erlick. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Page has already been protected by . Not seeing anything else needing doing. Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:63.158.212.98 reported by User:ImprovedWikiImprovment (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warn

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

Comments: Also name calling in edit summary.  IWI  ( chat ) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: IP editor blocked 48 hours for personal attacks; page semiprotected two months. See the protection log for the earlier problems. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Proustfala reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Tucker Carlson is a registered member of the Democratic Party. This isn't complicated. Please cease vandalism of this article and refer to talk page."
 * 2)  "User is engaged in edit-warring without basis."
 * 3)  "It is an invented standard that a political party designation requires explanation of their rationale for being a member of that party. Try applying that to other figures."
 * 4)  "It is your personal opinion that TC is not what you think a Democrat is. Factually, though, TC is a Democrat. This is a pretty simple edit."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Discretionary Sanctions Alert Post 1932 American Politics */ new section"
 * 2)   3RR warning


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Political Party */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Political Party */ fix"
 * 3)   "/* Political Party */ re"
 * 4)   "/* Political Party */ re"

User:GB fan is deleting my completely valid addition to the article, then reporting me for reverting his deletions. It's nonsensical. Proustfala (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I have removed it once and Proustfala has reverted 4 times today. ~ GB fan 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

. User was warned and has been blocked for edit waring before. -- Scott (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:178.149.9.21 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872343585 by Ktrimi991 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872316121 by Resnjari (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

There is a discussion on the article's talk page but the IP is not using arguments based on Wiki policy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Made two more reverts . Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * -- Scott (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:D4iNa4 and User:Orientls reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:55, 6 December 2018
 * 2) 16:59, 6 December 2018
 * 3) 15:53, 7 December 2018
 * 4) 16:04, 7 December 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: difflink

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

Comments:

At the onset I am clarifying that this is not a 3RR situation, but 2 users tag teaming and edit warring against me.

With these edits diff  ahead,  has controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without discussion and consensus, to which I protested on the talk page and reverted. Per BRD, instead of joining the discussion to make consensus, he is tag teaming with and edit warring to restore his preferred version of the controversial casualty figure. I have tried to restore the original figures, until a consensus has reached but I have been reverted twice, I am requesting help to restore the original consensus version and warning to both editors (who are clearly tag teaming to edit war) to not engage in reverts and instead join the talk page discussion to work for a consensus.  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No one has so far supported unilateral edits by DBigXray on talk page. Here are reverts by DBigXray:-


 * 1 December
 * 1 December
 * 5 December
 * 6 December
 * 7 December
 * 7 December

He is clearly the only editor who is challenging sourced content which is mostly staying there for years. DBigXray is also misrepresenting sources through his recent reverts, It is not supported by sources that "Indian government reports numbered about 2,800 killed across India, including 2,100 in Delhi, " when source says "survey showed that i2800 Sikhs were killed n Delhi ".

Also read edit summaries by DBigXray. He tries to evade 3RR but bludgeons talk page as anyone can see by taking a look at the talk page at Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. DBigXray has misrepresented editor's actions, and also invoked WP:BLPCRIME by misrepresenting that policy. He has further claimed that if you don't reply him that means he can make his edits ("discussion was left ignored for 2 days").

It is clear that DBigXray is organizing edit war every time in place of getting consensus for his edits. Because his edits are not getting consensus he is attacking editors by calling them a "Pro Khalistani and anti-congress", and harassing further on their talk pages. He earlier tried to prove that I was canvassed to edit this article despite despite I have edited the articled before. This harassment needs to stop. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the accusations of personal attacks by me, I wish to clarify that words from "my original comment" has been cherry picked and taken out of context in order to make a point here. D4iNa4 had commented on the talk page and was presenting statement of Khalistani leaders and beliefs of sikhs as FACTs and this was called out in my comment. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is obviously not surprising since you are also harassing people at this MR and claiming everyone to be engaging in canvassing and COI/paid editing while misrepresenting sources. This is occuring on daily basis even after being warned in a recent ANI for this battleground behavior. It has been established that you are here for righting great wrongs and now it can be also established that you can't contribute without harassing people. Qualitist (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualitist please explain how you have reached this page "within minutes" in spite of you not having edited the page in question, I don't recall inviting you to grind your axe here.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They've probably got it watchlisted, having reported editors here before. Regardless of that, this is not the page to report claims of tag-teaming if those editors are not actively edit-warring.  The correct venue, and one where I would suggest you would get a better response, is WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * has protected the page, which I was going to do last night but couldn't get my phone to cooperate. For overarching conduct issues I agree ANI is the proper venue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:42.110.136.102 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 2)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 3)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 4)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 5)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 6)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 7)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 1)  "/* Dialect */"
 * 2)  "/* Dialect */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Dialect. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

No discussion on talk page at all, but repeatedly replacing good content with their very simplistic and somewhat ungrammatical content, against multiple editors reverting them. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Celebrities making opening moves */ I don't know why my posts on this section have been labelled as irrelevant and distracting (that post was referring to notability of the idea that a celebrity should make a 1st move in a World Championship game) as well as more distraction (that post was questioning consistency if this aspect of the match were included). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Software would not select the other revert on this issue. This is a recurring problem on the article page as well, as evidenced by the IP's previous block. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The software wouldn't select the second revert because it's much too old, more than a week. The IP editor has made only one edit recently, removing a hat from a discussion, and they were the one who was reverted. Please engage in discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except multiple users have noted the violation of WP:NOTFORUM before this IP was reverted earlier today. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

'This is a recurring problem on the article page as well, as evidenced by the IP's previous block'. I think you meant to use past tense because unless an event is going on and has a Wikipedia page, I pretty much don't make any edits on there.211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC) '
 * The fact is you are continuing to edit war with multiple users, this time with a different venue or "battleground", the talk page. You are not going to fool anyone by arguing over semantics, WP:LAWYER style. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert to edit war, though on the talk page. Plus, how this is related to semantics?211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * or recurring problems which are no longer recurring?211.27.126.189 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */ I am addign more sources which say nothing about Bulgaria. So plese lave each aspect sourced by its own sources"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */ Stop the silly revert. Lets separate the sources to what they actually claim, cause the two claims are quite distinct."
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by Ktrimi991 (talk) to last version by FkpCascais"
 * 4)  "/* Early life */ One source claiming Bulgarian origin cannot be equal to the ammount of sources claiming Serbian one"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

He removed the warning with an insulting comment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Yes, cry out loud. Dont you know you shouldnt template the regulars? FkpCascais (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This editors (Ktrimi991 and Resnjari) are involved in a highly politiced dirty editing in which they think they WP:OWN the articles related to Albania. Here, in this case, we have a situation where many sources back up one claim, and just one backs up another claim, but their agenda wants to equal both sides. Well, they are erverting me and doing their best to add sources. FkpCascais (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This editors are involved in a highly politiced dirty editing Another personal attack/insult. The second coming from you within a few minutes. Someone with a pro-Albanian bias would not add that Skanderbeg's mother had Bulgarian origin, so do not accuse me of doing anything bad on articles related to Albania. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Its disappointing that @FkpCascais resorted to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior (sigh) as further comments in here show. As the article is Balkan related, its covered under WP:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If I was looking at the four reverts by FkpCascais, I would be also be looking at the four reverts in 29 hours by Resnjari, and the four in 26 hours by Ktrimi991. (As well as the 178 IP of course, but they've been blocked). I would be looking at blocking all three editors, or none. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , reverts relate to a blocked IP. How do they relate to this matter?Resnjari (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Made another revert . Resnjari and I have not made three or more reverts to the same content. Yesterday's reverts were because of an IP that is now blocked and have nothing to do with today's reverts. Anyways, if it still not allowed, sorry for the mess. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed still not allowed. "Reverts" refer to any revert. not just the same content, and see my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits don't fall under any of the exemptions for WP:3RRNO. The IP has only been blocked because they reverted around more times than any of the three editors mentioned here. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Article fully protected for 3 days. Please discuss at the talk page.  Any further edit-warring when the article is protected will result in a block.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK . Anyways I did not plan to revert again, and asked an admin for advice . Also, tell FkpCascais to calm down as he rv again. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that this pattern of instant reverting by Ktrimi991 concerns multiple articles. Two days ago he breached 3rr in Albanian-Greek relations (4 reverts in nearly 2 hours): 1[], 2[], 3[], 4[] clearly revealing a disruptive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was protected due to edit warring like edits you made with no consensus, . Actually it was because of @Ktrimi's efforts to get the page protected at the administrators board  that it all that ceased.Resnjari (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no excuse for 3rr breaching especially when the editor is edit-warring in a variety of articles. As for admin intervention it was SilentResident who asked it [] not Ktrimi.Alexikoua (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was protected after you pushed your POV. If you have a disagreement with the administrator who protected the page i suggest you take it up with them. As for Silent they came way later into the fray. @Ktrimi lodged the request first (compare the time of the edits).Resnjari (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Tornado chaser reported by User:JzG (Result: Struck, user responded to this report by self-reverting)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  first revert (of this Nov 5 edit:
 * 2)  second revert
 * 3)  third revert with comment noting he's now at 3RR (so no warning required)
 * 4)  fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * - user acknowledges knowledge of 3RR and the fact of hitting the limit.
 * Invited to self-revert: . Has not done so.

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

Comments:

I ask that this report be withdrawn as did not realize I was at 4rr and have now self reverted. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Blight55 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 8 December, 19:55
 * 2) 8 December, 17:36
 * 3) 8 December, 00:37
 * 4) 8 December, 00:22
 * 5) 7 December, 13:39
 * 6) 7 December, 01:43

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Dialogue opened at 14:24 on 7 December 2018 (in a section that had already discussed the issue), here.

Comments:

Blight55 is repeatedly inserting content to the infobox against consensus. Claims consensus is irrelevant (but also that s/he has consensus). Refuses to acknowledge BRD. Claims addition is verified but hasn't supplied a source (previous source supplied was WP:PRIMARY.) <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I have supplied a source actually. (https://www.nationalparty.ie/) "We seek an Ireland united, Irish and free.". You know that this source has been given and yet you knowingly lie here to try and give yourself an advantage. You're the one who brings up consensus as if it supercedes verifiability, by your definitions I might also have "consensus". If sourced information is irrelevant then I might as well just wipe the page and ask you to get "consensus" in the talk page before adding your edits. Blight55 20:46 08/12/2018 (UTC).


 * Well. There you go, then... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. User:Blight55 has made seven reverts since 5 December. There is plenty of opposition to the 'United Ireland' wording. Trying to force that phrase into the article unilaterally is not going to work. It needs an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:AspectRatiocination reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Withdrawn)
User being reported: Page:

This is a edit warring report, and not a 3RR report.

User:AspectRatiocination has three times removed properly sourced information from the article Gavin McInnes. #1, #2, #3 Each tiime they have done so without attempting to get a consensus on the article's talk page. I warned AspectRatiocination about this behavior on their talk page, and they deleted the warnings, , which is their prerogative (you spelled it right this time. Thank god AspectRatiocination (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)). I also warned them on the talk page of User:PeterTheFourth, who is one of the two editors (including myself) who restored the information deleted by AspectRatiocination. AR rejected my warning, asking if PeterTheFourth and I were "thick". 

Apparently, according to the edit summary of their third revert [, AR has a problem with the reliability of the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] as a source. However, if that is the case, they have two options available to them. The first is to get a consensus on the talk page that the SPLC is unreliable and the information should be removed, and the second is to open a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard -- where, actually, the SPLC website has been determined in the past to be a reliable source.

What is not an option for AspectRatiocination is to substitute their personal judgement for that of the community and repeatedly deleting sourced information supported by a source that has consistently been found by the community to be reliable.

AspectRatiocination's actions consists of disruptive edit warring, even though they haven't passed the 3RR bright line, and I ask that they be blocked for a suitable period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not entirely true. I repeatedly provided sources for why I performed my edits (most notably an article from the Washington Post declaring the SPLC to have lost all credibility because of their repeated un-researched judgement on various groups and individuals, which is tantamount to wanton character assassination). As I understand now that there needs to be a general consensus before edits are made, I have taken my proposed edits to the talk page of the aforementioned page on Gavin McInnes. My frustration with these 2 users stems from the fact that they repeatedly have ignored my summary notes, as well as my rationale (which I have backed up with sources), and their desire to paint me as a common troll and Wiki-vandal. Hence why I queried if they were 'thick'. I hold that they are not doing their due diligence in determining what I am actually up to. AspectRatiocination (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that your statement contains a blatant lie, that you "repeatedly provided sources" for your deletions. Your first two edits contained no edit summary whatsoever. #1, #2 While both of PeterTheFourth's restorations said: "Unjustified removal of sourced content" ,. It wasn't until your third removal that you gave some reasoning, #3 which was not valid, as it did not pertain to the situation involving McInnes and the Proud Boys, but to another circumstance entirely, and was an op-ed opinion piece, not a news story. My restoration, with the edit summary "Disruptive editing", came after your third deletion, so it could not have had any effect on your editing of the article.


 * I'd also suggest that you read WP:No personal attacks, as your comment comes very close to violating that policy by accusing two editors of "wanton character assassination". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Since AspectRatiocination has taken his concerns to the article's talk page, I'm willing to withdraw this complaint, with the proviso that if he or she deletes sourced information from the article again without a consensus to do so, I will re-institute the complaint in whatever is the proper venue at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter though AspectRatiocination is warned that further edit warring on the page may result in a block and/or discretionary sanctions, if they're unable to edit in a collegial fashion in this topic space. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nearestdexterity reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872919604 by Velella (talk) I'm pretty sure I'm not violating the rules. I'm not attempting to validate the statements ACT makes pertaining to the SPLC. I'm only providing what those statements are in a neutral fashion. That's how and why those citations are prudent, and conform to Wiki's own rules. Please maintain neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872909833 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) I'm putting the info back, the article is more complete with it. It's legitimate and the only argument you have against it is that you don't like it. It conforms to wiki's rules. I know you've been patrolling this page for years, but you're not going to stonewall accurate information being added."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 872906408 by Velella (talk) I'm aware they're probably an unreliable source, that's irrelevant. We report the things they say and do with accurate citations. Reader's job to make decisions about it. Wiki allows that form of citation. Thanks."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 872904537 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) That's not an argument, and I've done nothing but add additional, accurate information. Stop vandalizing."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 872896157 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) "Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (except for claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source..." - wiki. Seems acceptable to me. Who better to represent their views than them?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

3RR warning:. GABgab 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:PigPigofStAlbans reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: Blocked )
St. Albans, West Virginia:

PigPigofStAlbans

Previous version reverted to: suggesting reversion to I would be subject to 3RR, myself, if I made the revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Informal caution, part of a help request, Informal warning, still part of the help request, formal warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PigPigofStAlbans&type=revision&diff=873037014&oldid=873033421&diffmode=source I suggested the user open a talk page discussion. They acknowledged my point... and then proceeded to make a fourth revert.]

Comments:

I would also question if the user's account may not fall under a promotional user name or spam account. Striker force Talk 19:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm not sure what Strikerforce's "warring" is with the edit. I read the concerns, offered a compromise, received no objections, and made the edit. Strikerforce's personal opinions regarding PigPig does not change the fact that he is part of the town's history. If you were to come to St. Albans, you would see and hear of PigPig everywhere. I do not understand the determination to cover up the town folklore on a page about the town. I have been trying to have a dialogue and adjust the edit as needed. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PigPigofStAlbans (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is not what is at issue here. 3RR says that a user may not revert more than three times in a 24-hour period. You've now done so four times, including twice after being made aware of 3RR on your talk page. I'm more than happy to discuss on the article's talk page the inclusion of the pig, but I don't feel that it belongs under "Notable people" (or "Notable figures", as you've renamed the section). Honestly, it would seem to fall under a trivia item, which is also discouraged, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Striker force Talk 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:D.Creish reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  2018-12-05T15:36:14
 * 2)  2018-12-05T15:38:36
 * 3)  2018-12-05T19:13:27
 * 4)  2018-12-06T05:18:01
 * 5)  2018-12-10T17:10:48
 * 6)  2018-12-10T17:26:46
 * 7)  2018-12-10T17:43:52

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly reverted to change as the perpetrator posted an immediate intent to harm before the shooting, among a history of extreme anti-Semitic postings on Gab into as the perpetrator made anti-Semitic posts on Gab

User also coordinated with ANI-reported User:Ridiceo to help restore the latter's warred over content.

User have not tried to attain community consensus for their earlier reverts. When they finally joined discussion and consensus was not in their favor, user edit warred again.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (by another admin) Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mcrt007 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 872943029 by Grayfell (talk) There's no proof Owen Jones is a reliable source on any Science topic. Per WP:NEWSORG : News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from established news outlets is generally considered reliable for statements of fact" ... When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 872934214 by Grayfell (talk) The commentary is from an opinion article which cites no studies to support its claims. It's author has no Scientific training. The article links to a Medium opinion by Yonatan Zunger which cites no Scientific studies either. What exactly would make it a reliable secondary source for the "On the Science" section (not saying it can't be added elsewhere on the page)?"
 * 3)  "/* On the science */ Owen Jones' article does not quote a single study to support any of his claims; it provides no syntheses of a reliable primary source. So what exactly would make it a reliable secondary source for the "On the Science" section?"
 * 4)  "/* On the science */ Undid deleted section on the comments of evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller. Also, Quillette is not a blog but an online magazine (so are other publications currently used as Wikipedia sources, including Mother Jones, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_magazines )."
 * 5)  "Angela Saini and John Horgan are Science journalists. Owen Jones is not; his opinions should not be under the "Reactions" / "On the Science" section since he has no proper qualifications"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

gave a 3RR warning here, but that was too late, and an ANEW report should have been filed. I usually wouldn't report a user before giving them a chance to self-revert, but here we're talking about 5 reverts which is a bit too much to forgive. w umbolo  ^^^  20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Was not familiar with the 3RR rule before getting the notice from, but fine. The reverts came during several "talks" on whether is relevant to add to the "On the Science" section of the Google Memo article, the opinion of a political-activist with no Science training (and who did not quote any single relevant study to back up his claims). The article has several other sections mentioning the opinions of other, more high profile journalists (e.g.: from the NY-Times). These are outside of the "On the Science" section (e.g., see the "Cultural commentary" and "Other commentary" sections of the article).


 * Also, the section on evolutionary psychology professor Geoffrey Miller's statements has been abusively deleted by some other user. I did not delete, but restore it to its previous state + added additional BBC News links detailing Miller's statements (this edit has been left out in Wumbolo's list, chronologically should be between items 3 and 4 in the above list). The other editors involved in reverting changes, where doing their best to include in a section "On the Science" of the memo, the comments of a political activist, instead of those of an actual Scientist like Miller. Mcrt007 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This editor stopped reverting once the notice hit their talk page. -- Longhair\talk 00:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Light Millennia reported by User:Thinker78 (Result: Full protection for 1 week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I tried warning the editor but they just removed the warning and reverted once again hours later. I warned the other editor involved and they, unlike the editor at hand, seemed to accept the message and apologized. I am uninvolved in the disputed edits. Thinker78 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 3RR only applies once a day (I think). And it's been three days... Light Millennia (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First diff: Revision as of 23:58, 8 December 2018; last diff: Latest revision as of 19:30, 9 December 2018. That are five reverts in 24 hours (if my count is right). Note there was similar edit war involving the very same editor just a month ago (the article was shortly protected back then). Pavlor (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the total amount of time, though all this seems very confusing to me. When I asked, they replied that the 3RR is simply a bright line established to determine disruption. Anyway, I don't feel like it's even relevant anymore since the discussion has now finally been moved from the article to its talk page (per my request). Light Millennia (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If another editor posts a notice in your talk page you shouldn't just remove it but should try to find out for sure what's going on, try talking with the editor who posted the notice in the first place, that way you can clarify things before getting reported here. It looks like you don't really know how it works. If you revert more than 3 times in a single 24-hour period you are violating the rule. I don't understand what you mean with "it only applies once a day", but apparently you got some info wrong. Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverts continue:,. This time it is more subtle, but general pattern is still there - this editor removes any change that doesn´t suit his idea of the article. I tried discussing this, I even thought we reached some sort of consensus. Well, apparently editor in question thinks "consensus" is only his POV. I don´t see any reason to edit further the article or continue discussion with this editor (I will not indulge myself in pointless edit-warring). If that means his ownership of the article, so be it. Pavlor (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate when you re-phrase my edits to claim things that are not included in the sources (e.g. false distinctions/connections like "in the context of" and "similar views exist also about [X]"). Please read WP:original research. Light Millennia (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article back to the version before the edit warring started on 8 Dec and fully protected it for 1 week. ~ GB fan 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SaifulAlam309 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Hermetic writings */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hermes Trismegistus. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hermes Trismegistus. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Emerald Tablet. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Failure to communicate and insistence on adding unsourced or poorly sourced material at two articles suggests to me that an indefinite block may be needed, if not now, later. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * for sockpuppetry. Sockmaster also blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SportsFan007 reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:, , , , among others

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:40, 10 December 2018, 11:54, 10 December 2018, 12:47, 10 December 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:52, 10 December 2018
 * 2) 12:01, 10 December 2018
 * 3) 12:43, 10 December 2018
 * 4) 12:52, 10 December 2018
 * 5) 02:05, 10 December 2018
 * 6) 03:13, 10 December 2018
 * 7) 12:58, 10 December 2018 (third revert on the same page in less than 24 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:07, 10 December 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:53, 10 December 2018

Comments: The reported user is constantly reverting colors in the user boxes to his preferred version and ignores what is written to him. I tried to write him what is wrong at User talk:SportsFan007, but it seems he just does not seem to care. Additionally, wrote about the issue in his edit summaries at Template:Las Vegas Aviators, but got reverted without any explanation as the reported user does not use edit summaries at all. I want to also point out that the reported user has already been blocked four times for edit warring as can be seen at his block log. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I already apologized and reverted all my changes that you didn’t revert. <span style="background:#000000;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;k; color:#00FF00">SportsFan007 (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * I never said I didn’t care, and I apologize If I did anything that implied it, and you were being too vague in your explanation and I was having a very hard time understand what you were referring to. and they way in which you are talking to me was coming off a bit insensative. <span style="background:#000000;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;k; color:#00FF00">SportsFan007 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
 * I now understand to keep colors/colours compliant with MOS:ACCESS, meaning that the colors have to be in a way that people who are color/colour blind can easily read what’s written. Thank you for this lesson and I’m sorry I had to learn it the hard way. <span style="background:#000000;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;k; color:#00FF00">SportsFan007 (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007


 * you've been blocked four times for edit warring, and unblocked once already with a "final warning". I think you should understand well by now that edit warring is not allowed. Do not allow yourself to get reported at this board again, or it is very likely you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I told SportsFan on WT:WikiProject Football that you really shouldn't mess with colours you went and did it anyway? That doesn't seem smart at all. Govvy (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wasteman1000 reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Note also similar reverts over a longer period:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A long list of potential candidates was removed after discussion on Talk in August. There has been some ongoing discussion about that since on Talk, and of late no clear consensus perhaps either way, for or against inclusion of the list. Wasteman1000 has repeatedly tried re-adding the same list (unchanged, with no attempt to address discussed issues or evolve the material) and has been reverted by multiple other editors. Until today, despite suggestions and warnings, Wasteman1000 would not engage in any Talk page discussion. Until today, Wasteman1000's edit-war was a slow motion affair, but he's hit four reverts in the last 24 hours. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . Edit warring aside, this is obviously somebody's sockpuppet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GoPhoenix1 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts 
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has twice reverted material following 3RR warning, and sought to remove this report. Further, judging by Talk page comments, user also appears to have a personal or professional involvement with the subject of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * - pro tip: blanking the AN3 report does not get you out of being blocked and will usually get you blocked more quickly and for longer. --B (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing the report did not seem like a good move. I thought I restored but it looks like someone beat me too it. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DigbyDalton reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

A broadly pretty minor wording issue, re the popularity of early V8 engines in France.


 * 1) ""
 * 2) "not popular in passenger cars. Race cars. And France had no airplanes until 1908."
 * 3) " Who keeps changing this? The V8 was NOT popular in France in passenger cars, in fact it was extremely rare. It was only used in race cars."
 * 4) "Stop editing this if you don't know anything about cars. It was not "popular" in France, there were no production V-8 automobiles anywhere in the world until 1914. Race cars and airplanes only. Get it? Stop editing."
 * 5) "No, it says popular. It was not popular, which means cars. STOP EDITING, used in race cars in 1904, and it was never used in any aircraft in France in 1908. Never POPULAR!!! The first French airplane was 1908 and it didn't have a V8."

Brought up on the article talk: here: Talk:V8 engine, but ignored (two more reversions since).

Given their abusive and dismissive tone to other editors, and poor past experience of dealing with this editor, I doubt that much will be achieved, hence ANEW.
 * User talk:Andy Dingley
 * Talk:V8 engine
 * reported user has not edited since being warned. I'm not confident, though, since they've been editing for a decade and ought to know that edit warring is not allowed by now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, he's returned:
 * 6. "Well "popular" sure doesn't mean limited to race cars." to repeat the same edit-warring
 * and also "You must be out of your mind." in response to the user_talk: warning. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely. It's pretty brazen to respond to a warning about edit warring, a notice that you're been reported to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, and an administrator repeating the warning on that noticeboard, by continuing to edit war and throwing a personal attack into the mix. They'll need to convince someone they won't keep it up before they'll be allowed to edit again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pato Lukassss reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

User has kept on the edit warring even after this report was filed:


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Discussion has been attempted at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, but the user basically ignores discussion and keeps with the edit warring despite repeated warnings (only edit was to say they were just "started editing", but they continued with the EW thereafter nonetheless despite reverts by multiple users). Impru 20 talk 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the new editor's changes to the article. But, I disagree with his/her forcing that change, when there's currently no consensus for that change. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:36.232.207.225 reported by User:DPPTPP (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 873395531 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252, 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 873394549 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252, 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 873393970 by DPPTPP (talk)Please don't abuse IP, and I find that you often abuse IP. Like 205.173.47.252, 67.188.179.66 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 Please talk in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Persistant removal of source. DPPTPP (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_IP_abuser_-_DPPTPP

I reported the users anomalous behavior there, including keeping my spelling mistakes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873395489&oldid=873395215 through the editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked for block evasion (and their subsequent IPs have also been blocked) and DPPTPP was blocked by a checkuser. How's that for resolved? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Lordtobi reported by User:BLDM (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previously discussed a similar issue with the user:

Comments: Reverts are on two different pieces of content, so this is just a 3RR violation. BLDM (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say. First of all I linked to the guideline that goes strictly against one of the diffs you, as well as the IP user, made, namely WP:OVERLINK: The founders should not be linked twice in the infobox. For some reason, you claimed that there was consensus for purposely overlinking in the infobox, but there isn't. We previously had a chat about this because you kept removing links from the infobox on the grounds that they were already linked in the lead (not the infobox), clearly those are not the same thing.
 * After that edit, you proceeded to use my point ("don't link twice") as means to justify the unlinking of Palo Alto, even though Palo Alto is only mentioned once in the entire infobox. I reverted you for obvious invalid rationale. In one case, you clearly overlinked, while in the other, you underlinked; I'd be applying WP:STATUSQUO or guideline-based reverts (counting out two of your invalid rationales), so 3RR doesn't apply. Otherwise, any vandal I'm reverting on a daily basis could have me blocked. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You might need to take another look at the list of exemptions, but I could be wrong.
 * As for the issue in the last two reverts, check the image caption in the infobox. BLDM (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case the second part is indeed on me, apologies. I removed the offending content. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since Lordtobi reverted their last change. I'm hoping this is on the way to resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:220.245.208.179 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 873513409 by IanDBeacon (talk) Changes made, as per talk. Please see my talk thread before ANY FURTHER EDITS. Citation and source needs heavy review and WP:CW."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 873512518 by Jackfork (talk) Changes made, as per talk."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 873512300 by Jackfork (talk) Please discuss on talk before further reverts."
 * 4)  "Stop reverting without citing anything (not even policy in the summary???) if you wish to revert, cite actual sources for the "Cultural Marxism" theory on TALK. Be WP:POLITE, have the discussion, do the work. Stop WP:TEND this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAPBOX. Cite sources or policy. Justify your actions/edits or DONT DO THEM."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 873510196 by EvergreenFir (talk) - WP:SALT, WP:CSD, WP:CCC and WP:RS are all valid reasons for blanking. Stop trying to preserve salted content."
 * 6)  "Blanked as non notable, please, if you revert this change - PLEASE cite appropriate sources for the existence of "Cultural Marxism" on TALK."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Frankfurt School. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * []


 * Comments:

This IP is removing content from article and reverting other editors. There is a discussion on the article's talkpage too. IanDBeacon (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IP user was also reported to WP:AIV and indef semi protection requests made at WP:RPP by myself and another .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * by . Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sixit reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: article, talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Article:
 * 1)  - 10 Dec
 * 2)  - 13 Dec, 9:47 EST
 * 3)  - 13 Dec, 11:08 EST
 * 4)  - 13 Dec, 11:19 EST

Talk page:
 * 1)  - 13 Dec, 11:10 EST
 * 2)  - 13 Dec, 11:12 EST

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not 3rr specifically but edit warring in general. Multiple sources have been pointed to on the talk page, more raised, he raises none but argues that because none of us were alive then we don't know and reverts despite having no consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson reported by User:Sixit (Result: Retaliatory filing, Sixit blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baphomet&oldid=872952088

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baphomet&diff=873180431&oldid=872952088
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baphomet&diff=873510546&oldid=873506132
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baphomet&diff=873516390&oldid=873516289

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873514220&oldid=852531697
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873516757&oldid=873516740
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873517845&oldid=873517121
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baphomet&diff=873519643&oldid=873517845

Comments:

Ian.thomson repeatedly violated the NPOV by adding the watchword "falsely". This is unsubstantiated conjecture and conclusory. In the talk page, Ian.thomson became abusive, which I deleted and he reinstated, and continued to use conjecture and bias. The proper place for both of these is a separate section devoted to theories behind the accusations. We know they were accused. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not the accusations were based in fact. Because no records were kept of the secret meetings held by the Templars, no one knows for certain what occurred in those meetings. What we do know for certain is that "falsely" is a conclusion - one that cannot be substantiated, and based on conjecture. The article is already on shaky ground for NPOV; adding "falsely" puts it solidly in violating NPOV. The irony, of course, is that Ian.thomson placed on my use rtalkpage information regarding NPOV, so he knows better.

On the NPOV Wikipedia page, we have this: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." As a result, editor consensus is unnecessary, and maintaining NPOV is an exception to the WP:3RR policy.

Sixit (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claim that maintaining NPOV is an exception to the WP:3RR policy is both ironic and false. See WP:NOT3RR for valid exceptions.  You are the one inserting artificial balance against the majority of mainstream sources, which is a violation of NPOV.  As the sources I've pointed to indicate, all mainstream historians will say that we know damn well that there was no Baphomet idol -- the few instances where Baphomet was mentioned were either politically motivated accusations or torture-induced agreement, everyone who hadn't already been executed by Philip the Fair were transferred to the Hospitalers or retired peacefully, no idols were found in their treasuries (when all their possessions were transferred to other orders such as the Hospitalers), and the Pope's investigation absolved them of those accusations.  While we don't exactly have video footage of the meetings, if there is no physical or reliable circumstantial evidence, the accusations had a clear political motivation, all contemporary independent parties ultimately concluded that it didn't happen, and all mainstream modern historians likewise say it didn't happen, it is nothing but conspiracy theorism to say that it might've happened.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What's more, the attempts at discussion you linked show that I'm doing all the work in trying to establish a consensus and you're doing nothing! Furthermore, you don't link to the status quo version of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an NPOV issue. Consensus isn't necessary. AGAIN I will point you to WP:Neutral_Point_Of_View. You'll note that it is not on WP:NOT3RR because NPOV supersedes 3RR.  Please explain how I am introducing "artificial balance"?  The fact that the Templars were accused is historical fact. None of your sources proves the accusations were false. The important word here is "proves", as the burden of proof is on you to show the accusations were false. Sixit (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sixit blocked for disruptive editing, specifically disruptive behavior on the article talkpage and borderline edit-warring. @Sixit, NPOV does not supersede 3RR: if that was the case everybody could assert that they "win" by claiming their POV is the most neutral, and edit wars would be perpetual.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: topic ban)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Calthinus (talk) to last version by FkpCascais"
 * 2)  "Please don´t add unsourced content and dont remove sourced one. See talk-page, I brought many English-language sources"
 * 3)  "Rv unsourced edit. No source says he was Serbian or Bulgarian origin. Plenty sources claim Serbian origin, and one claims Bulgarian which btw doesnt mention "Nobiity""

  [ (the last one by an admin a few days ago on this noticeboard
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

An admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again. Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why you lie? Where did he warned me? He warned you. Fed up of liers. Present a diff where did he warned me or appologise. FkpCascais (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is at ANI. This POV-pushers need to be stoped. Enough of emoving sourced content just because doesnt fit their antionalistic beliefs. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another personal attack, like your title "Nationalistic" editors. --Calthinus (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am adding links to reverts FkpCascais made before the full-protection, , , . Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , please desist with the personal attacks.Resnjari (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FkpCascais reverted again . Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

They are using the excuse of having problems with one of the sources to remove text and 7 sources. Typical POV-pushing manouver to get info they don´t lke out of the article. This group of editors has completely been gamming the system by editing as a team and eliminating any ediors hey don´t like. Its time for them to start rspectng souces and stop manipulating aticles. FkpCascais (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @FkpCascais reverted again .Resnjari (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins might need to coordinate since there is an open thread at ANI/I related to this. See . Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FkpCascais is now topic-banned . This discussion can be closed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * was topic banned from the Balkans per Discretionary Sanctions and as a result of the ANI thread. Said user is also blocked, at this moment, for 24 hours for violating the topic ban. Please note that was the admin doing both actions, not I. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Iaicanwin reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "when ever the name of Prophet Muhammed appears (may peace be upon him) has to be recited invariably.Hence edited .Regards"
 * 2)  "When ever Name of Prophet Muhammed appears ( may peace be upon him ) must be recited.therefore edited accordingly."
 * 1)  "When ever Name of Prophet Muhammed appears ( may peace be upon him ) must be recited.therefore edited accordingly."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Tablighi Jamaat. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tablighi Jamaat. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* No "PBUH" on Wikipedia */ new section"


 * Comments:


 * – 48 hours. The user is edit warring to add the phrase, 'may peace be upon him', after the name of Mohammed, contrary to the guidance at MOS:PBUH. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User: 71.12.61.136 reported by User:Edmondfrairbrook (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Wrong board. There's no edit warring here. The IP has not been undone by anyone, and a quick look at the edits does not show any other obvious issues.. Meters (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no edit war being conducted by at Zahra Karinshak, the only article that IP has edited, nor any edit warring there by anyone else. Please review the information at the top of this page and at WP:EW that explains what edit warring means. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not edit warring, but something is suspect here. See this edit by the reporting user. This administrator is now actively monitoring the page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * by the IP. Unclear why this report was filed. The reporting editor inserted at least one misspelling into the article (Georgia -> Gerogia); this should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Kitutia reported by User:Goldenshimmer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff (I'm confused, I don't think this diff is relevant, but I don't know what is supposed to go here): Special:MobileDiff/868979437 Link to old version of page: Special:Permalink/868979437

Diffs of the user's reverts: I don't quite understand this form, but all of their contributions are this change (except for this one).
 * 1) Special:MobileDiff/869464365
 * 2) Special:MobileDiff/872180712
 * 3) Special:MobileDiff/872602766
 * 4) Special:MobileDiff/872844965
 * 5) Special:MobileDiff/873102156
 * 6) Special:MobileDiff/873414270
 * 7) Special:MobileDiff/873620122

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:MobileDiff/873095437 Special:MobileDiff/873103846 Special:MobileDiff/873476049

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:MobileDiff/873103556

Comments:

Hi! There is a dispute of the religion statistic on Tanzania, over the change made by Kitutia... I don't know if I'm filing this correctly, or if it's eligible (no one broke the three revert rule I don't think, just making the change and don't discuss it). They change the value, but don't give a new source. I asked them to, and tried to talk about it, but they have not made a response...Sorry if this is filed wrong but I don't know what exactly to do otherwise. I think they don't know how to use talk page maybe? I only undid the change once, but several other people did too so I think there is consensus against their change until they give a source for it or something... Thank you for your help resolving the dispute! <span style="font-family:'Wreathe','Centaur','serif';color:#2a1657;background:#e2daf1">—&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125;｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 03:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user continued to revert after being warned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Tasties.food.2017 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   | 02:42, 15 December, 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 873785383 by Meters (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 873759682 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 3)  "A self pretentious movie pirate need not decide what others can edit."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 873646910 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 5)  "Sincerely hoping the "lords" and the "film pirates" stay away from this."
 * 1)  "Sincerely hoping the "lords" and the "film pirates" stay away from this."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kolamavu Kokila. (TW)"
 * 2) | 05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC) "We're the Millers" Previous warning by user:SummerPhDv2.0 for edit warring the identical content into We're the Millers


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Same issue, different article */ agree"
 * 2) Talk:We're the Millers Extensive discussion of this same  claim (December 11–13)  in We're the Millers in which user agreed to stop making this claim.
 * Comments:
 * Please also note the multitude of petty personal attacks from Tasties -  and on their edit summaries     They've been pushing this since September and I haven't seen any interesting on their part on listening to some pretty solid advice others have given them.  See Talk:We're the Millers for where this started.  Ravensfire  (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. I see that the user attempted twice to insert the same claim (minus even the current inadequate ref) into Kolamavu Kokila last September:. [ [[User:Meters|Meters]] (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And 10 attempts to add the identical claim to We're the Millers           Meters (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67 reported by User:78.1.163.218 (Result: Filer blocked)
User:  Page in dispute: 

User Peacemaker67 write falsehoods, in other battles in wikipedias in the score "results" does not write such nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Storm&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.218 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:569:7C07:2600:15B7:E316:53DC:112B reported by User:74.15.124.52 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring by a user who's already at three reverts within 24 hours with two different IP addresses (the one reported above + 2001:569:7c07:2600:3548:42e5:aff5:d8d4) Despite the reason given for my edits, the warrior has performed reverts with no edit summaries rationales. (Note: I've only performed two reverts) In addition to his edit warring on the article, he has tried to edit war on my own talk page and completely lost his temper during an attempt of his to have the page protected. User hasn't broken 3RRR but his attitude clearly shows a determination to edit war with no intention to discuss, hence the report.74.15.124.52 (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I know I am not edit war. The IP from Quebec has disrupt edits from a mall from Quebec and the Quebec IP has made the wrong edits and should have been blocked. Any administrator watching this hoping for a resolution. I am positive I did not edit war. The IP from Quebec already made the edit war first. 2001:569:7C07:2600:15B7:E316:53DC:112B (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted an edit on December 12, 2018 with a source coming from the official website, you've reverted it with no explanation with your IP 2001:569:7c07:2600:3548:42e5:aff5:d8d4. I've reverted you once (admittedly with no edit summary that time) and you've reverted it a second time with no explanation. . I've performed my second and last revert and you've reverted it again with no edit summary. The only one edit warring here is you.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.124.52 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The page history, the diffs I've provided to the administrators and your lose of temper speak for themselves. 74.15.124.52 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You were both edit warring and I saw this at WP:RFPP so the page is now protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Stephen reported by User:Sandstein (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ; Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack

Comments:

Stephen is of the view that the image at issue must not be used as fair use because the person is recently deceased. I disagree. The talk page discussion linked to above indicates that community consensus to this effect does not exist. On his talk page, Stephen indicates that he will continue edit-warring to revert the image instead of, as would have been appropriate and as I requested, seeking to establish broader community consensus for his view through nominating the image for deletion at WP:FfD.  Sandstein  22:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven’t made any such claim that I will continue edit warring, we were discussing this on my talk. And now it’s been dragged here. Stephen 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did. I wrote "I ask you again to stop edit-warring about the image", and you responded "No".  Sandstein   23:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 'No' referred to your interpretation being incorrect. Specifically your statement that ‘Clearly, the consensus you refer to does not exist.’ Stephen 23:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Non-free images of deceased people are acceptable use on articles *about* them, not to illustrate articles about events they have been involved in. The non-free exemption for media is that the picture significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic and it accepted that is the case for images of people in biographies but very very rarely elsewhere. Also its generally frowned upon uploading a non-free image of a person days after they have died as free images may be available. This is *basic* NFCC guidance, and will take more than edit-warring at a local article to over-rule. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You two should be able to resolve this cordially on the article's talk instead of over edit summaries. There's only 3 reverts for now, but there's no argument raised as to how this would fall into any of the specific exceptions to 3RR. Let's not create unnecessary drama over a picture on an article. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sandstein should be trouted for such a frivilous report. It's is getting beyond absurd now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:The Bangsawan (Result: Advice)
User:Kwamikagami reported by User:The Bangsawan (Result: )

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  [rv by The_Bangsawan after Kwamikagami warned him to stop]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [this is where Kwamikagami warned The Bangsawan]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not an application for a block, but the user has threaten to have my account to be blocked despite the fact that I was trying to adhere to the rules and made my justification based on good faith. The disagreement largely derived on the form of language being used in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Malay language article. The user contended that it was a "Malaysian" (language); but based on the Malaysian, Singaporean, Bruneian laws and regulations, it is not Malaysian language, but a standard form of Malay being used in these countries.

The Declaration, which adopted by the United Nation's website clearly stated that the form of language is Malay/Bahasa Melayu, it is written on the Declaration's header and language profile. The website can be accessed here

In my talk page, I have provided reference based on Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution that can be accessed here and section 2 of the National Language Act 1963/67 that can be accessed here both have stated that the Malaysian form is known as Malay instead of Malaysian.

Furthermore, a similar rule of the official standard of Malay is being observed and agreed by section 82 of the Constitution of Brunei which can be accessed here] and section 83A(1) and 83A(2) of the Constitution of Singapore which can be accessed here|here

Other Wikipedia articles that stated the said form is Malay includes Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (Institute of Language and Literature), the regulatory body of the Malay language in Malaysia, the website of the organisation similarly stated that it is regulating the Malay language which can be seen in the official website's profile. The status is also parallel with the Malay Language Council in Singapore - profile, Brunei - Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Brunei (Institute of Language and Literature Brunei) - official website (in Malay), Thailand - Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Melayu Thailand (Institute of Malay Language and Literature Thailand) - the article, written in Malay. All of these official regulatory bodies has used the word Malay instead of Malaysian (even from Malaysia itself).

It is also should be noted that there are also local dialects spoken in Brunei (Bruneian Malay) and in Thailand (Pattani Malay, Satun Malay and Bangkok Malay), these variants are partially intelligible with formal Malay. Nonetheless, in formal situation (news broadcasting, official ceremony), they would use standard Malay and not the local dialects. There are several articles that already covered these dialects.

The user himself has called my edits as stupid which can be seen here despite I have given various sources and even the official statement from the United Nations on the Declaration, in contrast to his unsorced claims--د بڠساون (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bangsawan, you engaged in the edit-war here. When an edit of yours is reverted, you need to take it to talk, not re-revert -- that's the definition of "edit war". Trying to head me off by reporting me first when I warn you to stop is just dishonest.
 * In case anyone here cares, the facts are not in dispute. The issue (re. why I reverted Bangsawan's initial edit) is whether a standardized variety of Malay should be called "Malay", in an article that is itself called "Malay", when being compared to another standard variety of Malay. An analogy with English would be to compare GA with RP in the "English" article, calling one "American" and the other "English", or the first "Engish" and the other "British", merely to match the wording of laws in the US and UK (or indeed to call them both just "English"). That would be incoherent. There needs to be some way to distinguish the national standards from the language as a whole. The stable version of the article before Bangsawan got to it was to call one "Indonesian" and the other "Malaysian". The article explains that the "Malaysian" standard is also official in Singapore and Brunei, though I have no problem with noting that again in the comparison table. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The crux of the matter appears to be a content disupte., do you agree that we should follow the normal process of reverting to the last stable version until a consensus emerges at the talk page for the changes? —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More a naming/terminological dispute, I'd say. I have no problem with the content or references that Bangsawan added to the article. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that we should apply for an editor (or several editors) who are familiar with the language, sociopolitics and history of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore and Thailand. There are several reasons why Indonesia is constitute a different language, which can be seen in the declaration. It is almost (although not entirely) similar with the Hindi-Urdu divide.

I already give the differences in the article between the Malay Dialects and the formal Malay (known as Standard Malay in English or Bahasa Melayu Standard/Bahasa Melayu Baku in Malay). The differences between the Malay dialects and the formal language is similar to standard Arabic vs. local arabic dialects.

The refence and the content itself has stated that it was Bahasa Melayu (and not Bahasa Malaysia). This is quite a good ground for the justification.

Btw, you already called my edits to be stupid (despite the fact I have given respected sources from the law and the said declaration) and I already explained the differences between higher Malay and the colloqial Malay, but you still threatened to have my account to be blocked despite the fact that I am improving the article of my mother tounge. Rather than have to be blocked, I would like to explained to the administrators.د بڠساون (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, quoting from the Cambriage University Press, based on an article by the University of Brunei Darussalam, which explains the existence the "standard" Malay (Bahasa Melayu Baku - which is different from local/regional dialects) and Bahasa Indonesia. Which can be accessed on the third paragraph here -

''Closely related varieties of Malay have national language status in Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore, where it is referred to as Standard Malay (Bahasa Melayu Baku, Bahasa Baku), and in Indonesia, where it is called Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) (Soderberg & Olson 2008). There is a high degree of mutual intelligibility between all these standard varieties, which are said to derive from the Malay of Johor in Peninsular Malaysia (Steinhauer 2005).''

د بڠساون (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, very much like Hindi/Urdu, which are also different standard forms of the same language. As your last quote demonstrates, Malaysian and Indonesian are also the same language.
 * But that's an issue for the talk page. The question for you is, are you willing to revert your edits and engage on the talk page, as WP rules require, or do you need to be blocked so that the rest of us can fix the article?
 * — kwami (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why should it be reverted? The sources have been provided with laws, the declaration from the UN and the scholar/academic articles on the status of the language. This is in contrast to the unsourced/unreferenced claim on the previous version.


 * The situation in Indonesia is different, they called the official standard of their national language is Bahasa Indonesia, different from the situation in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (and from the UN itself) that refer the standard as Bahasa Melayu (Baku). There are only two official standard of the language, despite so, both Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu Baku are visibly different from one another, and of course signficantly different from the various local dialects.


 * This is why I am posting our discission here, it shows that we are trying to resolve this issue and at least you won't repeatedly be calling my edits (and the said valid references) as stupid in front of the admin, despite the fact that you don't even have any academic/legal references to support your claim in the article.


 * Again, I would suggest to appoint verified and professional editors who are familiar with the history of these counties to act as an arbitrator to resolve this issue.د بڠساون (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Bangsawan is clearly not willing to abide by WP guidelines for resolving disagreements. I've restored the article to the status quo ante, except for a few additions Bangsawan made that I don't contest (Bangsawan, the alternative would be to revert everything you've done), and would request that if he continues to edit-war rather than try to reach consensus, that he should be blocked, at least from this article -- I don't doubt that he may be making useful edits elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope the administrator would consider my application, I have added my references/sources in the article based on the Malaysian/Singaporean/Bruneian constitution, the governing body for Malay language of these countries (including Thailand), the academic journal publication and the United Nation Declaration itself that have all collectively agreed that the form of the language in use in that Declaration is Bahasa Melayu (Baku) - The standard Malay, instead of the term "Malaysian".


 * This is widely in contrast to the other party who keep on insisting that it is "Malaysian (language)" without citing any single academic/legal references while calling my edits to be stupid repeatedly and threatened to have my account to be blocked from editing. I hope that an arbitrator would help to consider this issue based on my sources given.د بڠساون (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @The Bangsawan: This administrator asks again: are you willing to voluntarily revert the article back to the status-quo version and discuss the matter at the article's talk page? I would prefer if it were voluntary rather than for me to revert by administrative action and then protect the page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)`

I thought might be an answer, but it was a few hours before your question.

I'm not contesting the link Bangsawan added (which is quite useful and should've been there already) or the comment on the history of Malay lit. BTW, this question of naming has been debated before, as part of the design of the article and the balance of coverage in the Malay, Malaysian and Indonesian articles, though it's been years. (And thus stable for years.) It's essentially the same solution we came up with for Hindustani, Hindi and Urdu, also Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Croatian, both analogous situations. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Kwamikagami: If you can find a link to where that discussion took place specifically regarding Malay, please put that on the article talk page. Please also ping me so I can see it, with respect to seeing if the status-quo version also represents consensus, if this article gets protected. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There was never a help-request filed, I don't think, but there are several threads on this topic on the 'Malay language' and 'Malaysian language' talk pages, including one archive, several of which involve me. It looks like the split in the article (not by me) occurred in 2010, so there's been plenty of time for formal debate. If you check the move history of Malaysian language, you'll see it was moved to 'Standard Malay' in 2016 and immediately moved back. There was never any discussion that I can see.

The problem always has been the name conflict. Malaysia called its official language "Malaysian" for a while, but currently just calls it "Malay". Indonesia does not. Yet there is consensus in RSs (linguistic lit) that they are standards of the same dialect of the same language, which is called "Malay". Some people want to call the official language of Malaysia what it's currently called in the constitution, but that causes a naming conflict. It's what I imagine would happen if the US were to officially call American English "American". What then would be the topic of the 'English language' article, then, the language, or the British standard that goes by the same name? Since both are called 'Malay', the language and the Malaysian standard used to be conflated as 'Malay language', before the split, but that lead to constant argument as to what the topic of the article was--the language, or the Malaysian standard that now goes by the same name?

A secondary issue is whether the official language of Singapore and Brunei is the Malaysian standard, or if one or both have their own standard. Bangsawan says the former British colonies all have the same standard, and I have no reason to think he's wrong. But since in both cases it's just called "Malay", it's not obvious. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @Kwamikagami: The name conflict ultimately is a matter that needs worked out at the article's talk page (or a project page), not this noticeboard. The most I can do here is to protect the page if the edit warring continues. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I realize that. I was just trying to answer your question, so you could decide what the consensus was. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay.


 * There are proposals to rename the official standard of the Malay language as Malaysian, but this was never materialised under Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution and Section 2 the National Language Act (Malaysia). Hence, Malay has always been the official standard of the country, instead of Malaysian. Similar to its sister states.


 * I am a law school graduate in Malaysia and I believe that I have a good underdstanding on the Malaysian Constitution, it is a part of our first year curricula.


 * Moreover, the United Nations itself has officially stated that the declaration was written in Malay, instead of Malaysian, which can be seen here. -


 * I have already purposed to Kwamikagami for several times that we should appoint an experienced wikipedia editor (one with a good underdstanding about the Malaysian/Indonesian/Singaporean/Bruneian history, language and sociopolitics) to act as an arbitrator to resolve this issue. But instead he/she continues to threatened to have my account be blocked from editing.د بڠساون (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @The Bangsawan: You should discuss the matter at the article's talk page first. If you can't get a clear consensus there, you can either request a third opinion or open a request for comment. I will be returning the article to the status-quo version while this discussion takes place. I strongly recommend that you do not attempt to change the article yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice @C.Fred, I shall follow your recommendation for the third opinion and request for comment.د بڠساون (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:174.255.147.159 reported by User:TedEdwards (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on American Horror Story: Apocalypse. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on American Horror Story: Apocalypse. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The final four reverts have taken place within 24 hours. They are edit warring over an unsourced comment based on the critical reception of the season in question. Despite several warnings that they are edit warring, they have made no effort to discuss and explain their edits, and they also fail to use edit summaries. T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  22:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And since this report was filed, they have reverted two more times on the same page (see at 01:39, 15 December 2018 and  at 12:28, 15 December 2018).  T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  13:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Zv7db9s reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 873760092 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 873759270 by MrX (talk) Wikipedia is an unbiased source of information. Citing articles that are not medical journals and simply opinions from only one side, is a clear demonstration of bias. Statements made in the previous revisions contain clear bias and do NOT represent consensus."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 873751444 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 4)  "Removed significantly biased descriptions based only on cherry-picking sources from articles with no medical credibility."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on What the Health. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There was also a 3RR warning, prior to the last revert, posted on the talk page. Ifnord (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User is now at article talk and has not reverted again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

He reverted again and I blocked him for 24 hours. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Anna Frodesiak. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and now blocked by AF indefinitely, basically per WP:NOTHERE. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:600:8180:450:34bc:491b:d52b:b994 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP has not chosen to use the talk page.

Comments:

Please be aware that this particular IP has been edit warring under different addresses, since 30 November. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3 days. Would have range blocked but I doubt they'd get the message.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:lowercase sigmabot II reported by User:83.28.3.236 (Result: Nom blocked 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diff, just the bot ignoring nobots

Comments:


 * The bot is doing its job. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They decided to lie about being someone else and got into a stupid edit war with Sinebot for pointing out their bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nw510510 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "do not revert addition added gender equality portion from sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no"
 * 2)  "added gender equality portion from sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no"
 * 3)  "added gender equality portion from sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no"
 * 4)  "added gender equality portion from sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nw510510/sandbox&redirect=no"
 * 5)  "gender equality"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2018 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I'm trying to talk with them on my talk and theirs... but they still keep adding back their whole sandbox draft with sandbox template and all to the article. Gender Equality Eritrea was also create with the same information..... Panic attempt to get assignment done. Simply put the additions are not ready for publication. Moxy (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is edit-warring, but given that I had already protected the page based on your RFPP report, I'm not keen on unprotecting this and blocking. Under the circumstances, I would be unsurprised if some socking took place, too. I'll leave them another warning. Vanamonde (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Nguyenquochieu2107 reported by User:KimverlynMaeRAMOS (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dear Administrators, please help me. Once again, some Vietnam's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976, Indonesia at major beauty pageants, Philippines at major beauty pageants, Miss Teen USA, Miss Universe 2018, Angola at major beauty pageants, and also he's trying to created some wrong information pages such as Texas at Miss USA and Miss Teen USA, and many more. They changed placements of the country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are, and other Vietnamese Fans. They changed placements of the country, the name of the contestant and using Edit summary to provoke war by using irrelevant comments in the edit summary section. They change Indonesian achivements with the Unknown contestant from some countries was not competed for real.

He's trying to report me and play as a victim, if you guys check his talk page, he's already been blocked by so many times and received so much warning by another users from all around the world, he keep lying about the info's especially pages that relate about pageantry, so many other user did not feel comfortable when ever this user edited with a wrong information, Wikipedia never allow to use rude & irrelevant comments in the edit summary section (such as what he's already been done before he was commenting bad like this>>> shamed, disgusting, etc) which is inappropriate to use that kind of words, you guys need to block this account since it's make confusing too much by editing with a wrong and hoax information, editors and the admin that own the pages feels uncomfortable as well as we read some kind of bad words from in the edit summary link, we Wikipedian must use this tools wisely as an editor.
 * (Other side's report added to this one)


 * Dear Administrators, please help me. Once again, some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major :beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. :They are, and others. They created many account and some of which has been confirmed by :a CheckUser as a sock puppet of User:DeanBWFofficial like User:DPIDAMU, User:KevinLilliana. They changed placements of theirs country. They :robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages in 2017, 2016, you can see it. They did not :give a better source to prove them.
 * Dear Administrators, please help me. Once again, some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major :beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. :They are, and others. They created many account and some of which has been confirmed by :a CheckUser as a sock puppet of User:DeanBWFofficial like User:DPIDAMU, User:KevinLilliana. They changed placements of theirs country. They :robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages in 2017, 2016, you can see it. They did not :give a better source to prove them.


 * I tried to stop but did not succeed. Last time user GorillaWarfare helped me to prevent them but now they change again. I'm so :sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them and consider blocking them for a long time.


 * Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 7h30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)



&#91;Username Needed&#93; 12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, stop reverting each other, stop editing each other's posts, and leave 's talk page alone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Bonner16 reported by User:Jeni (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Also strongly suspect is a sock of this user, as well as using an IP. Jeni ( talk ) 13:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jeni I have no links to this user (I'm sure admins will be able to tell this through IPs etc etc), you also didn't notify me of this on my talk page. Lewysmithy96 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * . Feel free to WP:SPI if there is a concern of socking. -- slakr \ talk / 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:The Way not The Ave reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: blocks, protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Typo"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 874216618 by SounderBruce (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 873134047 by SounderBruce (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Ave. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Under multiple accounts, this user is persistently trying to change the article's subject to a made-up name with no known sources (and it claims to be from a university society, which smells like WP:OR). "The Ave" is a well-known moniker used without question or variation by many sources (The Seattle Times, NY Times, Seattle Police, Seattle Weekly, UW Alumni, etc.).  Sounder Bruce  22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * / by another admin -- slakr  \ talk / 03:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 874075242 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) 1. Not needed. 2. Editor seems to have WP:OWN issues."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 873934703 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) We don't need to repeat all relevant policies and guidelines in remarks. If there are editors who don't know this, we will write them on their talkpage. This page is on my talkpage."
 * 3)  "/* top */ -a and minus comment." (initial edit)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* A Discovery of Witches note */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See above discussion.


 * Comments:

I do not plan to revert further, as I believe that edit-warring over a hidden note, informing editors of a relative guideline, is absolutely absurd. I would, however, like to see it restored. I see no basis behind the WP:OWN accusation. Further discussion can be seen at the editor's talk page. This sort of behaviour is alarming, after seeing the number of topic/interaction bans they have been subjected to, along with their extensive block log. --  Alex TW 23:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * &mdash; not a violation of WP:3RR, and as a side note, I don't see any consensus in Talk:A Discovery of Witches (TV series) behind that inline comment; if you feel it's important to retain it, I'd suggest raising it on the talk page. Citing MOS:LEADCITE is in no way an exception to the 3RR, either. -- slakr \ talk / 03:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , this forum is to report edit-warring, not just 3RR. I don't recall mentioning 3RR in my report, nor do I recall any such policy that bans inline notes that have remained through WP:EDITCONSENSUS. --  Alex TW 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware this board is for general edit warring, too. However, given the editor's activity on that page, it doesn't appear to me to be long-term edit warring over the content in question. My suggestion is to consider WP:3O / WP:DR; you'll both be edit warring if you both continue down the current path. -- slakr \ talk / 03:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this board for long-term edit-warring only? Sorry, I wasn't aware of that, I thought it was for "general edit warring too". Edit-warring over an inline note. Whatever will we see next? Page protection against colour changes? --  Alex TW 03:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)