Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive381

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Lewysmithy96 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent disruptive editing of both Bordeaux and Liverpool Airport pages. I have only listed Bordeaux here but the same has happened on the Liverpool page. User:Charlesdrakew refers to "advertising", "promotion" and "spam" on edits which show future flights on Wikipedia - something which is and has always been shown on airport Wikipedia pages. Myself and others users all agree these things are to be shown - again User:Charlesdrakew is the only one who believes this to be wrong. This has been discussed on a talk page and on his talk page. I very strongly believe User:SovalValtos is a sock-puppet or affiliated with User:Charlesdrakew also. Lewysmithy96 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Like I've said in my edit summary we don't add future services, You added content, You were reverted, You then go to the talkpage and discuss your changes, Personally I would say Bonner16 is a sock of Lewysmithy96 but either way I cba filing an SPI, The only editor(s) edit warring are Bonner & Lewy. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

To User:Davey2010 firstly I have no connection to User:Lewysmithy96 I only noticed that she has been experiencing the same issues with User:Charlesdrakew on the Bordeaux Airport page as I have been on the Liverpool Airport page.

You say we don't add future destinations unless there is notability around it. I take it you will be removing future destinations from all airport pages then, as it would be rather unfair to have one rule for LJLA and another rule for everyone else.

Also will you then reinstate Warsaw-Chopin as a destination from Liverpool as it's been flown since 2004 but User:Charlesdrakew insists on removing it which in my view is simply vandalism. Thank you Bonner16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * All my reverts are to remove refspamming and use of Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. The content being added contravenes policy in multiple ways e.g. WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOTDIR, WP:PROMO. It is also WP:Recentism and mostly original research. This is permissible editing to protect Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No I shan't be doing that as that involves 24/7 monitoring!, I currently have 29,000 items on my watchlist so as such it's impossible to remove items and then keep tabs on them, The 2004 thing I would personally allow but things vary from editor to editor (so what I might consider fine Charles may not and what Charles considers fine I may not ... so you'd need to go to the talkpage for that one). – Davey 2010 Talk 00:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Infact your best bet would've been to start a discussion on the talkpage (which if that failed then you have a variety of venues (WP:DRN, WP:30, or WP:RFC)). – Davey 2010 Talk 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at Talk:Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport in which none of the editors or sock IPs have seen fit to partake!Charles (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * both &mdash; upgraded 's on Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport to full since it looks like it'll continue there too (and he's more than welcome to change it back himself if/whenever he so desires or if he disagrees). -- slakr \ talk / 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (outside of 24 hours, so does not count for 3RR
 * 2)  (first edit inside the last 24 hours)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The material in question, sourced to The Guardian was orginally added by an IP editor here, on 15 December. Robynthehode was the first editor to revert it, on the same day. I myself reverted it once before I realized that it was sourced (I deleted it as unsourced information). The IP continued to add it, and Robynthehode continued to delete it. Between his third and fourth deletions, I took the material added by the IP, re-wrote it, adjusted it to more closely follow the source, moved it to a different position in the sub-section it had been in, and restored it to the article. At least one editor, who had been involved in the editing, thanked me for this expansion & correction of the material. Ninety minutes after I had posted it, Robynthehode deleted it again. I reverted, pointing out in my edit summary that the material was sourced, and that, generally, sourced information (as opposed to unsourced information) should not be removed from an article without a discussion on the talk page which generates a consensus for the removal. Robynthehode nevertheless deleted it again, two minutes later, claiming that this was justified because it was the status quo ante of the article.However (1) The material is about artificial islands in Dubai; (2) The sub-section it was in was "Artificial islands"; and (3) The material was sourced to a eminently reliable source, and -- because of my re-write -- followed the source. I believe, therefore, that despite being a disputed edit, as a disputed legitimately sourced edit, it should not have been removed from the article without a consensus decision to do so.I have no desire for Robinthehose to be blocked, my only desire is for an admin to warn them for removing sourced material without a talk page consensus to do so, and then edit-warring over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I may have made a mistake and edit warred. I don't have time to reassess my efforts at the moment. My edits were to prevent an IP from including information that was initially unsourced but was also irrelevant to the article because it was duplicating information in other articles. My full reasons are on the talk page of the Islands. If an admin looks at the edit history they will see this IP editor had no interest in taking the issue to the talk page and another editor apart from Beyond My Ken reverted this information. I was not reverting established article information as it was only initially included on 10th Dec by the IP editor. It is surely up to any of the editors that want this material included to provide a reason for inclusion beyond providing a reliable source. If I technically edit warred then I apologise. However admins need to look at the edit histories of 144.138.236.221 to see that this IP is included lots of unsourced or irrelevant information in numerous articles Robynthehode (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thee is no policy that the same information cannot appear in more than one article if the information is pertinent to both. The decision whether to include information in an article other than the primary one is an editorial decision, and therefore can only be decided by consensus. Robinthyhode, however, appears to want to make that decision by himself.  Exclusion because of "relevance" is not a situation which calls for the information to be suppressed until there is a consensus to keep it.  Since the information is not in any way dangerous or harmful, and is supported by a reliable source, it should be included in the article unless and until a consensus of editors decides that it is not relevant enough and deletes it, or endorse the deletion.If there were something "off" about the information, then Robynthehode's suggestion would make some sense, but that is not the case here. There is no sourcing issue, no BLP issue, no issue of copyvio, no issue whatever, in fact, except that Robynthehode doesn't want to include it.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether what Beyond My Ken says above is correct or not. But relevance to an article or section of an article should surely be taken into account and something that demands that the article status quo remains until consensus is reached for its inclusion despite reliable sources being provided. If not then editors can include any non-relevant information and it is then incumbent of other editors to challenge this and reach consensus for its removal. This means that lots of irrelevant (but not off topic) information can remain in articles. The emphasis should be on an argument for inclusion not exclusion. Happy to be corrected on this. Robynthehode (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:46.189.233.85 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Inflation

Comments:

Not 3RR, but IP has made claim 6 times now that daily consumer price indices (CPI) mean that inflation rates are calculated daily, and has been undone 5 times by 4 different editors. IP said that he would leave this alone but returned to it today after blanking his user talk page, and his article talk page  comments. Edits have switched from flatly claiming that inflation rates are calculated daily to couching it in terms of CPI, but edit summary here "Or do you want to state again that the Daily CPI and inflation is not the same ..." clearly shows intent is the same. Meters (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rs21867 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Rs21867's first edit reverted by Doug Weller. Rs21867 then reinstated this edit four times with slight modifications, while being reverted by a total of three separate editors.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here I advised Rs21867 "to stop edit warring. Feel free to open a discussion on talk ... "; Ravensfire provided a more formal warning and urged Rs21867 "to self-revert and stick with the talk page."

Comments:

As anyone that checks the account's history can quickly confirm, Rs21867 appears to be involved in a wide range of edit warring across multiple articles despite warnings to stop, perhaps most egregiously reinstating (without explanation) a large-scale WP:COPYVIO at Timeline of Gulf War (1990–1991) after it was removed by Doug Weller. Rs21867's previous four-day edit warring block expired on December 7, less than two weeks ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.10.73.140 disruptive editing
User makes edits to reorder cast lists without any explanation. Sometimes these edits bring back old content, and old mistakes, and old unreliable sources (like IMDB), or needlessly reformat the cast list as a Table. Frequently the user is repeats those edits despite having been reverted. User_talk:71.10.73.140 talk page shows many examples. The most recent example that the user is not learning from warnings is an edit to the article Miss Congeniality (film). Despite changes from the 8 of December being reverted and reverted again on December 15 the user made those same changes yet again on December 18. The user does not respond to request to provide edit summaries and does not comment on user talk page either. This is just one article as an example, the users edit history is full of edits which can at best be described as misguided, and I think a block of some kind is necessary. (I'm new to this process so I expect I haven't followed the procedure precisely but hopefully this is close enough.) -- 109.76.239.99 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SWmedianbg reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Jordan Taylor */Add content"
 * 2)  "/* Josh Taylor */Added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Blimey Cow. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Blimey Cow. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user continues to add an unreferenced section, and the remove the citation needed tag, despite three notices. They appear to be using multiple accounts. — Formal Dude (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 874313314 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 874312173 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) Try following the instructions on the page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 874311976 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 874302141 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The resolution discussion can be seen at Template talk:Series overview. A technical request was filed, and was contested and moved to discussion by myself. The reported editor has since continuously reverted the removal, listing the template as a technical request despite being moved to discussion. Per the instructions: "If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here." The request was contested, the requested move was created, and thus the request needs to be removed from here. The reported editor is well aware of the instructions at the page, as noted by their own mention of the instructions: "Try following the instructions on the page" --  Alex TW 13:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this ("Arkell v. Pressdram applies") considered a violation of WP:WIKILAWYER? "Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy (spurious legalisms)"? --  Alex TW 13:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he's telling you to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe that that is entirely fair; the editor needs to abide by the rules of the Technical Requested Moves forum, just as any other editor needs to. I still believe it is: "Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way". --  Alex TW 13:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See Arkell vs Pressdram he is by reference, telling you to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Only further supporting the multiple personal attacks, such as "canvassing" when informing a WikiProject, in this string of unacceptable behaviour. --  Alex TW 13:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is edit warring, it doesn't matter who does it. Andy should know this by now which makes it more disappointing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also noted should be the editor's worrying attitude as displayed at Template talk:Series overview and Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 17, the latter of which seems to be the cause of the actions taken concerning the Requested Move for the series overview template. --  Alex TW 13:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pigsonthewing has been secretly disruptive about merging Infobox season and infobox episode to infobox television, which is strongly opposed by many users for good reasons since he didn't take it up with WP:TV about it, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * While first looking at this my instinct was to block but I notice that has made several edits since their last revert. I take it that  they are done and thus blocking would not serve a purpose other than punishment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. This sort of behaviour does require a stern warning, however. It is unacceptable to continuously revert despite the instructions given on the page, and this behaviour seems to be purely out of ill will, given their lack of revert when another editor removed the request. --  Alex TW 10:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that user should get a stern warning over his behavior and such. Call me a pessimist, but I'm suspecting that he did that to cover himself. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:194.81.49.187 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 874494936 by Another Believer (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 874493214 by Another Believer (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 874491105 by Another Believer (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Is edit warring across two and a half articles (Aquaria (drag queen), Szayel Aporro Granz, & Szayel Aporro Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – Two month schoolblock. Edit warring at multiple articles. Already blocked twice in November for as long as a week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous similar reports: [1}, [2]

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Note: Warning deleted by ZH8000 without a response. Also US IP adds a reference mentioning ZH8000's claimed authority, but original source still has others so 'multiple sources' is still correctly supported.
 * 1)  - Original edit, not a revert. Edit was synthesising a WP:POV to interpret something the source did not state. Source cites three authorities.  is attempting to claim a single authority only which the source does not claim. Reverted to what the source states.
 * 2)  - Revert, claiming his unreferenced opinion that the other two authorities are not authorities. Reverted by a German IP.
 * 3)  - Reverted again with an unsupported WP:POV comment that universities and hospitals are not reliable authorities. This in spite of the single authority he wants in the article being a university and a hospital. Reverted again by German IP demanding a supporting source per WP:BURDEN.
 * 4)  - Reverted again with ZH8000 claiming once more that a university has 'no right to exercise power' (whatever that has to do with it). Also tells IP, "please don't be dumb". Original version reverted again by myself. Warning posted to ZH8000's talk page about the WP:SYNTHESIS of the source and possibly WP:OR about his opinion on what is and what is not an authority.
 * 1)  Once again reverted by ZH8000 claiming original version contradicts sources (which it does not).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not only a 3RR warning as but a warning of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR of which this user has a long history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Since behavioural issues of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR involved, posted to User talk page.

Comments:

ZH8000 did make a post to the article talk page prior to his last revert. Although the English was almost incomprehensible, he is merely restating his unsupported opinion that hospitals and universities are not authorities (even though the authority he insists on is both a university and hospital). TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment ZH8000's long habit of edit-warring (4 blocks), combined with his introduction of poor English to articles, and his obstinate, often indecipherable posts on talkpages, make it quite tedious for those of us trying to collaborate on articles. Eric talk 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional comment Another user has observed on the article talk page, that ZH8000 has most likely misunderstood the term 'authority' in that he may be assuming authority as in 'some form of law making entity' rather than authority as in an 'authoritative reliable source of information'. In view of both my and 's comment about both written English and English comprehension above there seems to be a WP:CIR issue here in addition to the above problems. TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit warring was almost 2 weeks ago. Yes I see they did revert yesterday. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The edit warning might have been issued two weeks ago, but it was seen by ZH8000 for the first time on the 18th, after a period of absence between the warning and the 18th. the last revert was immediately after they saw this warning. I would not accept an argument that the edit was made before the warning was read because the opportunity existed to revert after reading the warning. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocking now would be punishment rather than preventing damage. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Secure Fence Act of 2006 by User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:7rexkrilla (Result: boomerang block, 31 hours)
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:

User refuses to discuss changes on talk page, spills constant bullsh*t, undoes before checking changes and sources

You know, when you've reverted as many times as you have, you don't get to accuse other people of edit warring. And you CERTAINLY don't get to call their edits vandalism. --Calton | Talk 14:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The reporting editor had been warned about edit warring yet persisted in doing so. —C.Fred (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pzhanik reported by User:Cubbie15fan (Result: Articles protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 874503158 by Cubbie15fan (talk) WP:VERIFY Number of conference championships are wrong, NCAA tournament was first held in 1939, All championships earned pre-1939 can be stated. Provide verified reference."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 874499071 by Cubbie15fan (talk)  provide RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY"
 * 3)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 4)  "removed WP:NOR WP:Vandal  Pre-Associated Press Poll champions cannot be included under Pre-Tournament Premo-Poretta championships. First NCAA Tournament started in 1939."
 * 5)  "removed WP:NOR  NCAA doesn't recognize Premo-Porretta Poll rankings."
 * 6)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 7)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 1)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 2)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 1)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 2)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 1)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 2)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 1)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 2)  "removed WP:NOR"
 * 1)  "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
 * 2)  "removed WP:NOR"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Issue has also been occuring on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. Have tried to resolve via discussion on my own talk page per this user reaching out, however discussion has not continued and edit war has ensued. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Page:
 * I started editing and updating Syracuse Orange men's basketball on 9 December 2018. I have made about an average of 18 edits a day until this day. I invested time for a deep research and to gather reliable sources in order to put together encyclopedic content that is governed by three principal core wikipedia content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.
 * Diffs of edits made on 18 December 2018:




 * As highlighted above, user added maintenance tags right in the middle of the process of editing, which I accordingly reacted to and addressed the possible issues.




 * Next day, 19 December 2018. Following edits were made.


 * Diffs of edits made on 19 December 2018:




 * As highlighted above, user Cubbie15fan added a maintenance tag once again, considering my to his  wasn't satisfying. User Cubbie15fan proceeded to make edits herself/himself. I reverted her/his changes with providing reliable sources, which user Cubbie15fan later agreed with.




 * It reasonably appeared to me that the maintenance template did not belong when placed or was added in error, considering the fact that I was in the middle of the process of editing the page, and user Cubbie15fan‎ removes some of the information that I just added, without waiting on completion of the edit. I considered first discussing the matter with the original placer (Cubbie15fan) of the template and left a message on user's talk page to encourage a discussion. Cubbie15fan removed words that accurately represent the opinions of the source that I provided; therefore, I consider WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR edits and tags made by user Cubbie15fan unreasonable. I assumed that user didn't go over the article thoroughly and asked to "point out where exactly a neutral point of view is not maintained... so we can improve it"


 * Diffs of the attempt to resolve dispute on user's Cubbie15fan‎ talk page:


 * Essentially, user Cubbie15fan disrupted my edits without waiting on their completions. That issue could have been resolved by talking, which I initiated.

I've made some edits to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball page which I found very reasonable. The content within that article must be verifiable in reliable sources which wasn't the case. I addressed the issue in edit summary. However the user Cubbie15fan wasn't open for any discussions instead he/she kept reverting my edits and marking them as VANDALISM. I proceeded to encourage a discussion on the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball talk page and user Cubbie15fan's talk page. Pzhanik 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzhanik (talk • contribs)
 * Page:
 * Result: The articles on Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball and Syracuse Orange men's basketball have been protected for five days each. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:24.35.241.72 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Same edit-war on Warren Beatty plus BLP violations on Rose McGowan from this IP.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 1 year by User:HJ Mitchell. This is a dispute about the gender of one of Bening's children who appears to be in transition. Should the issue actually be MOS:GENDERID, a solution might be to change the article to say they have four children without specifying the number of boys or girls. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:38.70.238.231 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 874257055 by Classicwiki (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring after block and 3RR notification by administrator on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * – 4 days. Continuation of the same edit war at Samurai Warriors after many warnings and a previous 48 hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ruslik0 reported by User:108.173.19.46 (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has refused to comment on talk. Communication via edit summaries.

Comments:


 * User reverting edits for reasons such as “crap” and “abandoned” (violation of WP:OR and WP:V). 108.173.19.46 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No action necessary at this time. I suggest the IP editor(s) discuss the matter at the talk page and provide an updated source. I do not see any problem with Ruslik0 removing this material—even removing it three times over the past 10 days. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have two problems with the text that this IP tries constantly to add to the article:
 * The source is not very reliable for medical information. It is a news site and such sources tend to overhype the significance of the results. I would prefer a good medical journal article.
 * The news it self is old (almost seven years old) and its inclusion does not seem to be warranted as such news appear quite regularly and Wikipedia does not need to report them all especially when the research has failed to produce any significant results. In addition the IP is constantly trying to say that it "is being tested" now, which is inappropriate as the news, as I said above, is seven years old and it is unclear whether this research effort continues now.
 * Ruslik_ Zero 09:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an academic source, and therefore, reliable. This page shows the current status and how "Phase I clinical trials are expected to start mid to late 2019." 108.173.18.28 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page to force discussion to the article talkpage. This noticeboard isn't a forum for discussion of content.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:244:4700:7F30:8925:BC49:64DC:1F5F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I’m getting real sick of having to fix this guys"
 * 2)  "yeet"
 * 3)  "Fixed dating error again"
 * 4)  "Fixed dating error"


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


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

See Talk:Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:

IP could be banned user. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Esiymbro reported by User:יניב הורון (Result: Both warned, duplicate)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Notice how he tried to hide the edit summary, but his edit was a direct revert of Galassi
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User keeps restoring his disputed content without consensus. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "He tried to hide the edit summary, but edit was a direct revert of Galassi" It is not. His revert summary is WP:RS, and I updated the source. Esiymbro (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a difference. You restored your disputed content, with or without a different source. That's called a revert.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit." Source is part of the content. Someone asked for source, and I added one. Esiymbro (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, can you explain what in my added content accounts for an "unreliable source"? Esiymbro (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't, right? Esiymbro (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * see above - GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors are warned for edit warring on Antisemitism in the Soviet Union as the result of an earlier report. See the details there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Bilby reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (smaller change, not removal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Repeated removal of uncomplimentary, but sourced, content in a BLP.

This is obvious edit-warring, claiming such things as "per talk" and "per consensus". However it's against three other editors, all making the same point: this is sourced content with no good grounds to challenge it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate) (This is probably the best place to start reading, followed by the Snopes ref that is linked there)

Warned on user talk:, but this was immediately blanked as "rv - 3R does not apply to BLP violations"

Also raised at: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Comments:


 * As explained on the talk page, these are BLP violations, and reverting BLP violations is not subject to 3R. There are two claims being repeatedly added - one uses an SPS which we cannot use per WP:BLPSPS, and the other failed verification and is not supported by the source, which specifically quotes the subject as saying that he does not believe the claim being attributed to him. Andy Dingley is well aware of this, as explained on the talk page of the article concerned, and reverted to add the BLP violations back into the article. - Bilby (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a 3RR exception for sourcing at BLP, not simply "anything I want to do with a BLP". To claim that, you're going to have to show that the Snopes ref fails WP:RS.
 * There is a Forbes ref too, which you're claiming as SPS. However even that's no reason to remove it, merely a constraint that we can't rely on it. Which we aren't, as we have the Snopes ref as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I've just noticed that you were removing much the same section four times in November too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much repeating what I wrote above, but I am not saying that snopes.com is unreliable. I've been saying - as you would surely be aware - that snopes.com does not say that he believes that "solar panels drain the sun's power". It says that he once posted a meme with that in it, which is not the same as saying he believes it to be true, and the source specifically quotes Wolfe as saying that he did not mean it to be taken literally. It is a clear violation of BLP to say that he believes something when the source does not make that claim, and it is certainly a violation of BLP to say that he believes it when the source specifically quotes him as saying that he does not. Clear violations of BLP need to be removed - we already had an active discussion of this, which is where it should be handled. It should not be handled be returning BLP violations to the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You've once again removed it. You changed "claimed" (which he did, he posted the literal text, "draining the Sun") to "he also stated that this was not meant to be taken literally" which is a false and misleading use of "also", when he only did that two days later, after extensive ridicule. The point is, as confirmed by Snopes and by easily checking the primary source of the Twitter timestamps, that he made this statement without (not "also") the "not serious" retraction and that only came two days later.
 * You are obviously edit-warring against (now four) other editors. You justify this with a "BLP" exception to 3RR which requires you to show that Snopes is failing as RS. Yet you have still done no such thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I have to say this again, but I am not saying that Snopes.com is unreliable. I am saying that it does not support the text that "Wolfe believes ... that solar panels drain the sun's power", because the source did not say this, and the source specifically quoted Wolfe stating that he did not hold that belief. The BLP violation is not that Snopes.com is unrelaible, it is that it did not support the text added to the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * it does not support the text that "Wolfe believes ..."
 * Fortunately the article doesn't say that. But you keep removing it despite.
 * What Snopes does refute though is your addition, "he also stated that this was not meant to be taken literally". Doing it two days later, after online scorn, is not an "also". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The content you accused me of reverting - and which you added back - did say that he "believed" that . It now says something different as I'm trying to find some compromise wording that meets BLP. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * These are good faith removals of content which violates BLP, and are exempt from 3RR. The Snopes source may be reliable, but it does not directly support the article text for which it was referenced. Forbes contributor sites are SPS. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . We plainly provide an exception under the 3RR for editorial removal of unsubstantiated content from a living person's biography.  I am satisfied that the content about subject's belief that solar panels steal energy from the sun is not substantiated with sufficient certainty.  (Seemingly there is a line that he will not cross.)Users have a greater measure of obligation to resolve editorial disagreements on the talk page when the content relates to a living person.  Reverting to err on the side of caution while that discussion is underway is also generally permitted.  Consequently, AN3 should not be used as it has been in this report: all parties should please return to the discussion and focus their efforts there.   AGK  &#9632;  21:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should check WP:BLPREMOVE again. " Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. "  Note the direction of this: editors relying on the exemption should be cautious and should use BLPN first. Not "it's a get out of jail free card" unless proven otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wildandwounded reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */" Additional revert after this was filed


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2018 */ fix"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Britt Robertson. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Also note that they say they don't care if the get blocked and will continue to edit war ~ GB fan 22:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Both 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:

Comments: Repeatedly removal of content and the user's excuse "unreliable source" is blatantly false. The page is guardsd by a small number of editors who remove any content not in line of their views so I doubt a discussion will go anywhere. Esiymbro (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - Both individuals are culpable of the same thing. . This, in fact, sourced record, as well as repeated removal of it , should be discussed on the article's talk page. No such conversation took place PS - I'll gladly share my view if such a dialogue starts but for now either warn or sanction both editors if needed, not just one. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there is already a conversation here and no one has responded yet. One side was clearly not interested in improving this article. You can see the records of these users. Besides, refuting such a basic fact with "unreliable source" is already ridiculous enough. Esiymbro (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, three reverts in less than 24 hours is NOT a violation of 3RR, but four reverts is (see my report below). Also WP:ONUS is on him to gain consensus for his controversial edit, which was rejected by two editors.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And WP:REVEXP is on you. Without any explanation, your current edits are vandalism, not rejection. Esiymbro (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I started the talk here so go there and discuss instead of edit warring and silly reporting each other. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Esiymbro (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - the inserted content is WP:SYNTH, and given the Jewish Bolshevism anti-semitic canard - one should be very careful in inserting such content without on-topic sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job branding anyone who disagree with you as a Nazi. What I'm editing against is the blatant lies against the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union under Lenin. Tell me that I'm a Judaeo-Bolshevist conspiracist is among the most laughable excuses I've seen. Esiymbro (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:יניב הורון and User:Esiymbro are both warned. The next time either of you changes the article they may be blocked unless they have a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. If the religious background of the old Bolsheviks deserves mention here, it is best to have the relevance confirmed through the words of a source that is actually talking about antisemitism. (This article has 'antisemitism' in its title). If not, WP:SYNTH arguments will be hard to refute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The complaint is wrong, so please review the result. (יניב הורוןיני (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I have reviewed the complaint and you both were edit warring and you both were warned that if you changed the article again without consensus you will be blocked. What is the problem you see with this report?  ~ GB fan 16:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Kindly familiarize yourself with this vandal who impersonates people and this is one of his most favorite noticeboard. The report editor and this user with redlink userpage are two different users. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all of us read Hebrew script accurately, I've blocked the impersonator.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , maybe next time you can explain why you are doing things rather than just unexplained reverts. ~ GB fan 17:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Morphjam (aka User:7rexkrilla) reported by User:Calton (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported: aka

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and
 * 1)  18:32, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 875036208 by Calton (talk) you and Snooganssnoogans forced me into edit warring in the first place and my block was unfair. My reasoning in the talk page is solid, but you clearly don’t care about content and you are only interested in getting people blocked
 * 2)   04:26, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 875004924 by Calton
 * 3)   01:55, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 874985519 by Calton (talk) wow, a not-so-subtle accusation made with zero evidence
 * 4)  21:44, December 22, 2018‎: ''Enough with the unconstructive edit warring'

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006. Opposed by two editors so far, myself and User:Snooganssnoogans.

Comments:

Fresh off a previous block for edit-warring under the name (see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive381), "new user" User:Morphjam's first and only edits (see above) have been to continue the edit war on the article. It's obvious that it's 7rexkrilla, and the edit summary on their latest edit confirms it. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – Abusing multiple accounts, per the admission in Morphjam's edit summary of 18:32 on 23 December. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Cinadon36 reported by User:Skylax30 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians#Do_you_read_the_sources,_Cinadon36? [diff]

Comments:

User Cinadon is only reverting whatever I post, without contributing anything in the article. The talk of the page is open and disputes are being discussed, but he participates only to use superficial exuses such as the "consensus", or "violating WP:CLOP".
 * In general it takes two for edit warring. Both editors displayed a certain aggressive pattern with 3 recent reverts on each side.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the one is adding material and improving the article, and the other is only deleting.--Skylax30 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the rule of 3 reverts per day, was not broken. Secondly, in the edit summaries I have pointed out the reasons I reverted Skylax30. Thirdly, Skylax30 had the burden to establish consensus in the talk Page. Instead, he opted to personally attacking me Mr. Cinadon36, and former Tzeronymo, I know that you revert what I post withour reading the sources, only because I am Greek. clearly implying that I am anti-Greek, plus calling me by my previous username. Nevertheless, I did answered twice trying to explain the reason for my reverts ( "Your source was not discussing the origin of Albanian language, there is just a brief, insignificant mention about it.") Worth mentioning that nowhere did he asked me why I reverted him, nor did he tried to make his point at the Talk Page. Forth, another editor, commented that Skylax30 had to establish consensus. Fifth, removing irrelevant/distorted/not-well-cited material from the article, is better than adding irrelevant/distorted/not-well-cited material.PS:Sixth, another user was reverting your edits as well, an indication that your edits had to be vetted through a consensus building procedure.Cinadon36 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 1st. You did revert to previous version 3 times/day. 2nd, summaries are not discussions. 3rd, you use "consensus" as alibi to preserve the article in a POV version. 4th, I don't see any "attack". English WPists don't know that you changed name. The rest are beyond discussion. You probably think that the more you write the more credible you get.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Read this, when you find time: Avoiding or limiting your reverts--Skylax30 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – It take four reverts to break WP:3RR. Even so, the editing climate on this article is far from ideal. By this time, we would expect to see at least one RfC on the talk page. So far there is none. This article may be headed for full protection if people continue to revert without waiting for the outcome of a proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Azuredivay reported by User:King Zebu (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts made by multiple Users to convince User:Azuredivay to engage in a discussion and build consensus

Comments:

So, User:Azuredivay started making edits to India article in violation MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:NUMERAL, repeatedly ignored pleas to engage in a discussion and build consensus and then engaged in multiple revert wars(.

Currently, India is protected by an Admin, keeping the version which User:Azuredivay wanted - basically rewarding him for his edit warring, for not building consensus and for not following Manual of Style guidelines. This User claims that he is pushing Indian numbering system on this article to make "more sense to local readers" - while there is no evidence to suggest English-speaking Indians do not understand millions and billions as opposed to crores and lakhs.

I scrolled through a good amount of India talkpage history and didn't find one request from anyone regarding Indian numbering system. And the changes made by this User has already started creating confusion. I seek help from Admins to stop disruptive editing by this User. --King Zebu (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just want to also highlight that the User has displayed aggressive behaviour before also. --King Zebu (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

India is written in Indian English (at the top), I added Indian numbering system (crores/lakh, valid words in Indian English) in parallel to normal numbering (million, billion) in the form of '20 lakh (2 million)' to address the issue of people not getting the gravity of the situation when reading anything in million/billion as most readers in the Indian subcontinent aren't exposed to m/b in their daily talks and won't get it. To address that, but to also not alienate the different set of users, I added both numbering systems along with links to both so those who wish to learn either, can, while both sides understand what is being talked about without withholding any info. As for "no evidence Indians don't understand", i'd recommend you to read the wiki page on Indian numbering system and you'll see what I'm talking about. We are taught those m/b, but one does not and will not get the gravity of "1 million" compared to "10 lakh" when the latter is used in daily tongue/English maths/ schooling/education and government census. To wrap it up, I did not withhold information, and added info from both sides so readers from across the spectrum get more information and understand what'd being talked about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Azuredivay is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert about number formatting at India. They want to impose a style, said to be commonly used in India, that deviates from MOS:NUMERAL by using commas to punctuate long numbers into groups that may consist of two digits. The central WP:Manual of style is intended to apply all across the encyclopedia. If you disagree with the current manual of style, you are expected to seek consensus for a change in the rules, rather than reverting against them. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Rgvis (Result: Protected)
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:

Comments:

After recovering a text that was being in an open mediation process for some time (text previously deleted by another user, probably without knowing the ongoing mediation process), user:Borsoka returns to abusive (hard to be explained) behavior, although he/she knows the discussion issue very well. (Rgvis (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Boomerang. Four reverts:, , and . Notice of edit warring: . Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . Borsoka (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that they are both right about the other. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I did not revert their edits more than twice. Actually, started the issue with reverting a 3rd editors' edit and restoring a highly controversial version.Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. This article could be placed under sanctions per WP:ARBEE, but please try not to make that necessary. A review of the talk page shows that nobody has opened an RfC about anything that is in dispute recently. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:88.26.134.201, User:83.32.131.233, User:80.26.238.202 and User:193.153.109.64 reported by User:ImprovedWikiImprovment (Result: Semi)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pointless, user has ignored many editors.

Comments:

The accounts are clearly linked per WP:DUCK, and this is out of hand now.  IWI  ( chat ) 23:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two montha. One person edit warring through usage of four different IPs is not a good-faith activity. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Proustfala reported by User:Galobtter (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 875120325 by GB fan (talk) Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 875117587 by Objective3000 (talk) Vandalism"
 * 3)  "Tucker Carlson is a Democrat."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Block for edit warring
 * 2) Warning today


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

Other editors have discussed at Talk:Tucker Carlson


 * Comments:

Only three reverts, but it is a continuation of the very editing warring that got them blocked for a week, and per Special:Contributions/Proustfala, on their very first edits after the block expired. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Scott (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Alivebills reported by User:Edelseider (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Since 22 December, Alivebills is removing content against a) factual sourcing, b) several different editors, and c) objective correctness. You can see it here: . Please put an end to that. See also Talk:2018_Strasbourg_attack,, and on the same subject and with the same methods. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm just following what was doing. He's the forerunner of this whole thing. Alivebills (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "You keep removing the Islamic terrorism template, so... Alivebills (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)" Talk:2018_Strasbourg_attack Are you trying to make a point? cygnis insignis 19:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I had in that regard.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what else am I supposed to do? You won't let me classify it as Islamic terrorism and I don't want to be blocked, so I'm just doing the opposite thing. I'm tired of this argument. Alivebills (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , then withdraw from this and seek some other means of resolving content dispute. cygnis insignis 19:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already given up on the whole Islamic terrorism angle. That's why I've been undoing all those edits in the first place. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? Alivebills (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , you wish to see your actions damned, that is what I mean by asking if you are making a point. cygnis insignis 20:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So what do you want me to do? Stop editing the article altogether? I'm being serious; I'm on your side now. Why do you think I'm being reported in the first place? Alivebills (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "You won't let me classify it as Islamic terrorism" Untrue. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was when I just gave up and went with you guys. Alivebills (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * this is just insane, stop it! --Edelseider (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? Any connection of an Islamic extremist motivation has become tenuous to conclusively prove anyway. Alivebills (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins, Alvebills is doubling down without any shame or inhibition:, . No AGF here, the least I can say is that he is obviously unwell. Please block him, or ban him altogether.--Edelseider (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I like that you say 'please', as one does when making requests to Santa. cygnis insignis 21:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content should be discussed on the talk page with others first. Alivebills (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I am now trying to participate on the talk page, but Edelseider insists on having the long-disputed content kept in the meantime. (I understand that disputed content should be kept off articles until they are discussed through on the talk page, is that right?) Alivebills (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , WP:BRD is one approach. cygnis insignis 21:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alivebills has never been one for talking, only for "kicking ass" (in his opinion). The talk pages of the concerned articles are testament to that. It's disruption in the extreme. --Edelseider (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that is siding with Alivebills without verifying the veracity of his claims, which are in fact untrue. See here: Talk:2018_Strasbourg_attack. I can just hope that CC is not an administrator, because his lack of curiosity, or utter AGF, or sheer partiality, is worrying:. --Edelseider (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not an administrator. cygnis insignis 22:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't believe the statement of Christophe Castaner, France's interior minister? Alivebills (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Alivebills and User:Edelseider are both warned. If either of them reverts the article again they may be blocked unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this is fair and reasonable. The person who makes wrong claims and wrong statements (Alivebills), is treated the same way as the person who doesn't. Diplomacy at its finest! --Edelseider (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mountain157 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Mountain157 made several edits between 15 December and 20 December, which reverted in whole on 22 December. These edits, which included unattributed and poorly sourced WP:FRINGE claims to the effect that China is a state sponsor of Al-Qaeda, have been reverted in whole or in part by three separate editors: Wikiemirati,, and myself.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Are you biased? I clearly gave sources for the information I put down." (WP:PA)
 * 2) "Reverting back to last stable cited version" (Disingenuous edit summary; Mountain157 is the one trying to force a disputed edit through without consensus.)
 * 3) "Plenty of sources are given in the below paragraph, Discuss in the talk page before reverting." (Special pleading.)

Comments:

Al-Qaeda is under the following community sanction, prominently displayed whenever an edit is made: "Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users." It appears that Mountain157 is aware of this sanction and is deliberately trying to WP:GAME it; there are 35 hours and 44 minutes between his first and second reverts, and just 25 hours and 21 minutes between his second and third reverts. This behavior may not violate the letter of the sanction, but it clearly violates its spirit, and we should expect better conduct from users on highly prominent articles subject to community restrictions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. It's gaming, it's edit-warring, and it's not the only article he's doing it on. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

User:75.28.18.138 reported by User:Madrenergic (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 875349455 by Madrenergic (talk) The disputed content relates to your definition of the word "largest," which goes against the Oxford English Dictionary. If you would like to dispute this definition, please bring it up on the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 875327776 by Madrenergic (talk) The data is identical to the data found on each ship's individual pages. Additionally, neither ship is less wide than the other. The only difference in length. A ship that takes up more volume, by way of width, length, or height, is unequivocally defined as "larger" by any official dictionary. The most popular measurement of a ship's largeness does not mean it should be the only one."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 875081287 by Madrenergic (talk) I agree with you that lengths are accurate, and can be found on each individual ship's page. There is no dispute to the meaning of the word "largest" which is used in the title of the article, which is defined in dictionary as "of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity." Harmony of the Seas, as a ship, is greater than Allure of the Seas in extent and size (length)."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of largest cruise ships. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Definition of "Largest" */ unsigned comment"
 * 2)   "/* Definition of "Largest" */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Definition of "Largest" */ Reply"


 * Comments:

Persistent reversion despite appeals to resolve dispute on talk page first and ongoing discussion on talk page. —Madrenergictalk 21:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Persistent reversion despite appeals to resolve dispute on talk page first and attempted discussion on talk page. The user has not yet completely responded to talk page discussion. Furthermore, Madrenergic was the first to revert the article a full four times in an attempt to shift the criterion of the page from "List of largest cruise ships" to "List of largest cruise ships by gross tonnage." The opposing party himself admits that one ship is larger ("the key matter here is that she is 50mm longer than her sister ship"), and even wrote the words on the corresponding ship's article, but still causes a Wikipedia information inconsistency by failing to keep the information on ship largeness consistent across the articles. I welcome a fair, unbiased, and objective decision in regards to the intended content on the page "List of largest cruise ships" as well as a ruling on the current information inconsistency brought about by Madrenergenic, and I will follow such a decision as soon as the matter is clarified. My intention is only to look at the facts. —75.28.18.138 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:OlEnglish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what 75.28.18.138 claims, I would just like to point out that I made three reverts, not four, as evidenced by the page history. As for their other allegations and arguments about the disputed content, I will refrain from responding here as this is not the place to conduct content disputes. —Madrenergictalk 15:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Reporting User talk:Walter Görlitz (Result: Filer blocked for evasion)


(Walter Gorlicks) is edit warring and not discussing topics on the talk page first or getting a consensus first, is "OWN"ing the article, attacking/harassing me, being disruptive and violated 3RR on (Jon Gibson) and  (David and the Giants) (accusing me of being another editor he has conflicts with and had blocked even though no edits were vandalism but merely an automatic changing of an IP which isn't that user's fault). He also used a sock puppet on his Wiki Commons account (Surrey/Alberta) and possibly is doing so on here. See his other contributions/agenda on NF (rapper), CCM articles/albums, Christian music lists, etc. But at this point i'm following protocol for talk page messages and topic categories (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout) but he wants it his way and accused me of being another user/IP (regardless this is a separate situation). It won't bother me if i'm blocked just because i'm an IP while he has a zillion edits on here (mostly unproductive red/removed/reverted). 76.238.222.85 (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Anon is engaged in block evasion. Already reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 with explanation there. How big of a boomerang shall we gift our tenacious editor from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin? I will add that the editor from Fond du Lac likes following my edits, and making vague comments about edits I've made in the past, and that is evident here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's proven that you have harassed and followed/stalked that user to undo their productive work from what I see. Even if I was that user, it doesn't change the fact that YOU are not right to remove talk page messages nor incorrectly remove constructive edits or violate policy. The way the article is on David and the Giants is not correct. It needs to show the albums or years not "going it alone" or "time to do something else" just because that's what you prefer. You are in Surrey, BC and edited from Alberta in Canada as well (ie. on your Wiki Commons ). So what if two users are from the same location/town? Broadcasting that doesn't change anything. For the record, the place you mention is not even an actual location for me. IP locations aren't always accurate. But you keep thinking/believing that. Maybe you should spend your Thanksgiving and Christmas not arguing with editors as you have this year. Fact is you're wrong about deleting talk page messages and you're being disruptive with the category/section names. Stick to the topic. Stop defending your actions with "engaged in block evasion" to justify your vandalism and 3RR as you have done recently on other articles and were warned about (but not blocked). You should be given a break on here because of your more than 4 recent issues you were reported/warned about (Needtobreathe, various/multiple football/soccer articles, with User talk:Adamant1, Blue October per List of lead vocalists, etc.). P.S. You follow editors. Don't project. It's interesting to note that ALL blocks of me (1) and the other IP mentioned above (6) is a result of Walter. Not a coincidence! 76.238.222.85 (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, let's focus on WP:BLOCKEVASION.


 * Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through.


 * Point 1 is that any editor can revert an editor engaged in block evasion, and your edits pass the WP:QUACK test so I'll fall back on that. I don't have to explain why I'm reverting, yet I did for your first four (or was it five) edits. Then I mostly stopped.


 * Point 2. You made an OK edit, so I didn't revert that one, but for the most part, you're just angry (maybe not as angry as when you started emailing staff at the church I attend, but it's still basic "I'm going to make you pay" behaviour) about something but you should have waited until September to discuss your issues in a coherent manner. Instead you found an address that wasn't blocked and you came back to dig your grave a bit deeper.


 * Point 3, as a blocked editor, you can't discuss anywhere but on your talk page, and that discussion should only be to explain why the block should be lifted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Stick to the topic of why I made the edit not personal attacks and accusations about me. I'm none of what you're saying nor doing any of that and I take offense that you can assume/accuse me of that. I won't be doing anything in September and i'm assuming neither will the other user per their comments of not needing the IP. You are just trying to silence IPs and those who know more about a topic than you. It's clear you have done this on multiple articles recently. I did not come back on here until now and have nothing to do with what you're blaming me for. You're being petty and don't like being called out on it. Has nothing to do with block evasion. The topic categories are wrong and you had no reason to remove a talk page contribution that had nothing to do with that IP being blocked in the first place just because you don't like it and have a history of removing content on Jon Gibson's article (obvious by the revision history). I'm not here to argue with you. You're difficult to deal with. I am posting for Admin to see what you did and act on that not prove myself to you. Point is you're wrong so you want to have me blocked too so you have control of the articles again. That's sad for someone claiming loyalty to Wikipedia. I'm not going to discuss this with YOU specifically anymore. You have violated 3RR again and are not getting a consensus first nor discussing issues on talk pages before reverting especially when you know it's against policy that you are keeping the article in bad condition. 76.238.222.85 (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Admin: just some of the other complaints against Walter recently on Needtobreathe (ie. with User talk:MikeJonesJones via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=837175388#User:Walter_Görlitz_reported_by_User:_(Result:_)  which he was told to stay off the article but didn't, NF  and these disputes as well (so i must be all of these users too according to Walter?)... 76.238.222.85 (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Fyi: until Walter is blocked for violating policy (not just warned) then he will continue to disregard the 3RR as he does on Jon Gibson and Billy Graham according to the blocked IP he's complaining about and other editors he was reported by. He thinks he's invincible and is susceptible to recidivism if he gets away with this with multiple editors. Just see his block history in the past. He promises not to do it anymore yet still does and gets away with it. I agree I continued to revert in order for us to talk about it first and get a consensus but I've stopped so that I don't do exactly what i'm reporting him on. If I also need to be blocked for a period of time for my reverts then I accept that and appreciate your time in this matter. Ok, i'm done. 76.238.222.85 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually the report is malformed and the reported user hasn't been notified about this discussion on their talk page, yet. I'm an IP so I don't know whether I have the power to decline the report or notify the user through their talk page (that said, the reporting user seems to be an IP, too, given what it says at the 1st post on this section). Thank you.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not true 211.27.126.189, as per my comment here which led to Walter commenting above after he deleted it from his talk page as usual (in fact he gets angry with most people for posting on his talk page per his edit history): and now i'm suspicious of the above IP who incidentally has also been warned/blocked for edit warring but unlike Walter I won't accuse the user of being his sock puppet yet the 'language/verbiage' is similar. 76.238.222.85 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. I thought nobody even notified Walter in the 1st place. 2. Who is the above IP you're suspicious of and why? BTW I might be wrong, but I think that what you're saying about Walter and that other IP is all the more reason to block Walter. 3. If the report is malformed, why is nobody doing anything about it?211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That user has remained accountable, using an ip does not always allow that; the situation is asymmetrical in that respect. Are you planning to commit to this ip for your contributions? I ask because of the imbalance I can see, an investment in pursuing a grievance over building content. The opportunity for malice with a throwaway account is well known and editors defend established editors because of the exposure to this. I've never heard of Walter, this is an outside read of the situation; suggest you make a commitment to improving articles instead. cygnis insignis 09:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who the message was intended, but I'm not trying to have any connection with whoever you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm the one reporting Walter! Please stop asking and just read or stay out of it since you're not Admin or involved in the dispute/complaint. I don't really understand the previous two editor's comments completely but this is what i'm trying to do is improve the David and the Giant article and the way it is now is not right but Walter keeps complaining about block evasion not accepting fault for edit warring, 3RR and removing talk comments that have nothing to do with a block on Jon Gibson's article. They are different issues and should not have been reverted just because the IP he's claiming I am (we have edited on the same article which could be why he's confused and we're apparently showing up in similar locations). The point is he doesn't want those paragraph headings removed/changed so he's pushing his "sock puppet" agenda as he's been notorious for in the past. And the talk page comment on Jon Gibson by the blocked IP (assuming that IP changes automatically but is not outright block evasion and can't be proved it's not used by someone else either) should not have been removed in September. Based on that IP's comments, they don't need nor use the IP and wanted to avoid Walter stalking them so they welcomed the block and they are apparently still active on here but not waiting to discuss anything next September when the block is lifted as Walter suggested, so extending it is fruitless. Walter is distracting Admin so he can keep the article(s) the way he wants and have his way. Who else would keep reverting if they weren't adamant about showing "ownership" of Gibson and David/Giants articles mentioned above? He's not fooling me and he has a history of doing this as per articles included above with other editors. I've been hiatus since April when I was blocked for previously reporting Walter. I just wish someone would take the time to research my complaint, not be lazy and believe Walter again! 76.238.222.85 (talk)


 * Walter is well-known for being a bit OWNy and IDIDNTHEARTHATy. See previous threads here. 86.187.163.183 (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but a report here at AN3 isn't a regular post like on a talk page. I also wanted to know why Walter's talk page doesn't mention that there's a discussion here at this noticeboard. The only reason why I'm asking about is because there's something I didn't understand relating to how Walter's talk page doesn't say there's a discussion here. Thank you.211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, because he already deleted my comment about this notice off his talk page. You didn't check history? Why are you involved in this anyway? Please, only established editors/administration, no more random IPs piping in as much as I appreciate the support. I'm already being accused of sock puppetry which Walter was actually blocked for and investigated about in the past. Yes, Walter has a long history of OWNership which he calls 'accountability' or 'stewardship' (or "loving my neighbor" per Billy Graham talk page) which is not true. Regardless, he should not have removed/changed it when he himself changes paragraph headings to years/periods. This is an obvious obstruction. I just want the fix made on David and the Giants article to stick not be reverted every time I change it to something correct and I noticed the talk page comment by the other IP on Jon Gibson's article was reverted after being blocked and i'm just correcting something that Walter did which wasn't right (reverting it out of spite). No use going back-and-forth about petty matters. Let's focus on my specific complaint. Walter already knows about this discussion so it's not an issue about why it's not mentioned on his talk page anymore! 76.238.222.85 (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't think of checking history. In fact, it says at the top of the page that every user reported must be notified on their talk page. Plus. I said sorry and this report is malformed but I though I haven't got the power to decline the report on the grounds of it being malformed so I tried putting it on the section, not knowing any better way to try and fix the issue of this report being malformed.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop and move on. The complaint is fine. There is no "malformed" issue and you don't need to do anything to get rid of my notice/complaint. I'm starting to suspect you're associated with Walter. You're wasting time and making this complaint longer by repeating yourself. Walter was notified already. You're beating a dead horse... You're not helping/contributing! 76.238.222.85 (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I only heard of him as a result of being in this discussion, that's A. B. I already said I knew Walter was already notified. C. I thought all reports needed to be the template at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=new&preload=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Example&editinto= but with the fields filled in.
 * The complaint is fine. There is no "malformed" issue...
 * Wrong. Take a look at the other reports on this page: you complaint bears not the slightest resemblance to any of them, yours being a long-winded, rambling series of whinges, assertions, and complaints, unbacked by any real evidence. Continue in this vein, and it'll simply be closed, even if I have to do it myself. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. Let someone other than me deal with this. Thank you.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:76.238.222.85 is now blocked one year for evasion, per the new information I just added at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1702:1690:E10:387C:9EC8:F449:2305. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Cygnis insignis reported by User:Edelseider (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Cygnis insignis is now modifying talk page content under the accusation of "personal attack". This comes after his decidedly non-neutral interventions and stances in Edit_warring#User:Alivebills_reported_by_User:Edelseider and is thus both aggressive and disruptive. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:


 * someone may ask for a "diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", you might argue that when you restored the personal attack "Thanks, but no thanks." that requirement was satisfied. Clearly I disagree, and made it clear I was removing a personal attack with the second diff you supplied. Perhaps I should have warned about that before undoing that, but it seems self-evident that it is not okay. cygnis insignis 14:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, you didn't want to read the article that I provided. Instead, you used whataboutery ("climate change") diff and ad hominem attacks ("Koch magazine") diff. And you relied on Alivebills's summary of another article to get an idea of the article that you didn't want to read diff, thus making a display of your closed-mindedness and holding me in open contempt through your accusation of me not having understood what I had read diff. Now, why of all people should I even speak with you? Didn't you show that you were biased against me from the very moment you spouted "climate change" (something completely off topic and only designed to malign my contribution to the debate), and didn't you insult my intelligence by claiming that I didn't understand what I read? --Edelseider (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And if TL;DR, here: . --Edelseider (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Go read WP:AGF over and over until it hurts. Pointing out that a source is not reliable and may be politically motivated is not "whataboutery" nor an attack on your person (the definition of ad hominem), they are means of questioning the reliability of a source (which is not automatically POV pushing, especially when a magazine is objectively funded by the Koch brothers, who are so known for their political activities that we have an article on it). No comment on article content (I really don't care, which is why I'm explaining here instead of there) but the proper tactic here would be to find additional sources that support the claim rather than choosing this hill to die on. Removing the section title was an utterly pointless and frankly stupid way to start a fight, especially as you initially didn't care about the attack itself (just the bold print it got). Given that the filing user is clearly being emotional about this, I recommend being as too-the-point as possible with no humor, sarcasm, or commentary that might be misinterpreted. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to remove personal attacks. That said, the reasoning behind that is to remove disruptive material like "(hypothetical example user and not actually a user) rapes puppies because his dick is too small to get a tight fit elsewhere."
 * , bite yer bum. Have a safe season and prosperous new year, sincerely, cygnis insignis cygnis insignis 01:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  "wrong edit summary by uninvolved editor"
 * 2)  "rv back to version edited by Calthinus&Resnjari (per talkpage)"
 * 3)  "most of those edits were done by user:Resnjari, partial self -rv needs explanation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Has been asked by several editors to wait till all disputes are solved on the talk page before changing the stable version. Has been reverting for days. Examples:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the expression "reverting for days". I try to cool things down in talkpage and revert only when necessary per wp:BRD. Two reverts in 24h is certainly not a 3rr breach (revert #3 wasn't done within 24h from the other 2). I've participated in various discussions in the talkpage and several editors agreed and concensus was reached on various issues. On the other hand Ktrimi admits that he is reverting without even reading the text he removes [] (with two instant reverts recently [] [] and more reverting the previous days [][][][]).Alexikoua (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to rv yourself. I have not made 3 rv within 24 hours, and as I said in my last comment on the talk page, I leave it up to other editors to solve the final details of the said disputes. Why do you keep changing the stable version? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest everybody involved in the dispute to stay away from it for some days. After that, discussion can resume again. Meanwhile, Alexikoua you should self-rv. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean stable version for example the product of discussion (in BRD cicle) and editting by a variety of editors leads to a stable version. This one in our case []. I've told you that If you have a certain objection with those agreed parts I'm open for a new round of discussion (I fail to see three rvs within 24h from my side too).Alexikoua (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) And I suggest you (Ktrimi) take a nice long break from this noticeboard. This is the second time in a few days that you file a non-actionable report. This is clear WP:BULLY behavior and an intimidation tactic. Especially considering you broke 3rr a few days ago. Otherwise this will end up at AE. Khirurg (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The last report you filed here was closed with a warning for you due to personal attacks. Since then you have made other personal attacks. Do not speak for others when you do not respect the rules. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tone down the edit-warring and intimidation tactics, or I will report you to AE. I won't warn you again. Khirurg (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to file a report whenever you see it right. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There may (or may not, I haven't checked) be a case made for edit warring in general but everyone should read WP:BOOMERANG before filing one. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, Twinkle gave 3 diffs of edit-warring. Hence the report. A page protection would be good though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, do you mean that Twinkle filed the report after only three reverts? Because only three reverts within a 24 hour period happened.  If that's the case, that's a serious bug that needs to be fixed.  If you meant that you used Twinkle to file the report without either:
 * A) Double checking WP:3RR to confirm that the policy is "more than three reverts"
 * B) Double checking the number of reverts to confirm that they are more than three
 * ...That's a behavior you need to fix. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not react so angrily. The rule also says that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Anyways, I contintue to believe that my suggestion to all editors involved in the content dispute is right. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's done this before. Several times. Khirurg (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the policy, hence my earlier remark that there may be a case made for edit warring in general but everyone should read WP:BOOMERANG before filing one. That you told Alexikoua I suggest you to rv yourself and Alexikoua you should self-rv only makes sense if you believed that he had violated 3rr -- unless you were using this report to get your way in a content dispute by re-interpreting policy in your favor.  Now, I'd like to believe that it's the former reason (that you didn't misunderstood 3rr) and that you'll not file bad reports again but if you keep filing these kind of reports, we're going to have to assume it's the more problematic latter reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know about BOOMERANG, someone reported me a few days ago and got himself topic banned. I made the suggestion for Alexikoua to self-rv as a good-faith gesture as he was changing the pre-dispute while several editors on the talk page were asking for that version to stay till all disputes were solved. In the same manner, I suggested everyone (myself included) to stay away from the dispute for some days to reflect on the relevant issues and return later. Do not be very quick to assume about the reasons I filed this report. Do not expect any further response by me. Cheers and thanks for you advices, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears it's yet another unsuccesfull and bad faith report by the said editor not to mention his contiuous edit-warring this month (typical example a 4rvs wp:OWN barrage in just 2hours Albanian-Greek relations ([],[][]4[]) with persistent wp:NPA violations. I'm afraid this will lead to wp:BOOMERANG per admin's comment.Alexikoua (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When i advised you @Alexikoua to refrain from readding my edits into the article, which i had removed from the page as there was an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, you still added them in. Good faith was not observed and you took it upon yourself to edit war via WP:OWNERSHIP invoking me in your edit summaries as me agreeing, . On the Origins of the Albanians page you also were against having any images of Albanians in the section about the modern era due to reasons that no one else referred too. When asked to explain your reasons for removal  of pictures from the page you said:
 * "They look like typical Caucasian people & nothing can be added without concensus"
 * "Images of typical Caucasian people prove nothing."
 * "It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people." -in that same edit to prove your point you included a map from the discredited work about races by Carleton Coon
 * "Cartel Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag."
 * "Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc.".
 * "It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group."
 * I find it interesting because no other editor made it about those kinds of things, it was only you. Its disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Insisting on failed, bad faith reports with possible BOOMERANG effect isn't a contructive initiative. As for the above (unrelated difs) you finally agreed that images of typical blue-eyed white people raising national symbols (in Master race fashion) isn't the best solution.Alexikoua (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, Ktrimi991's report was more than justified and those edits (which were not related according to yourself but were part of the wider editing to the article) more then show it as they were NOT constructive by any measure and nor did they develop good faith.Resnjari (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid you are wrong here. Administrator Ian.thomson is correct that there is no violation about Alexikoua. Given Ktrimi991's worrisome attitude in a number of articles regarding the Balkan Topic area, I have become wary about his intentions. I hope you will do your best to discourage him from similar missteps and attitudes in the future. Otherwise, I may have no other option but call for the attention of the Admins. They won't be happy with this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 14:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , the worrisome attitude here is Alexikoua's who removed content based on concerning reasons about race etc. Ktrimi991 was right in placing a report here. I advised @Alexikoua not to misuse my edits as i removed them from the article in the spirit of good faith as there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. The article reverting to the stable version was the right call by Ktrimi991. If you wish to report an editor you should do so, otherwise bluster doesn't count.Resnjari (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Florian Blaschke reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: No violation)
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:

Reported user changed long standing content (3 months) and i reverted and asked him to discuss on the talk :, i also opened a thread on the article's talk page : but this was ignored by the reported user who kept reverting back, refusing any WP:BRD process. I pinged him and asked him to discuss his changes, but this was ignored again, with a personal attack-like edit summary (As far as i know myself, i'm neither a Kurd nor a POV warrior). I don't want to get engaged in an edit war and i would welcome the eye of an admin here. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – Only two reverts are listed above. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, i know there is no 3RR breach, but as you know, edit warring is not a 3RR breach. This user refuses to discuss his changes on the article's talk page. Anyway, i drop the stick for now about this article and will let other contributors review his edits. Thanks for the time you spent on it. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:68.47.64.121 reported by User:Shellwood (Result: Blocked)
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: This IP has a history of edit warring and now it's happening again, despite the fact that the IP has been warned not to upload disputed material. I won't make any further edits to the articles in question but they have been loaded with unsourced material and statements that are not supported by the sources used by the IP. The IP refuses to acknowledge that. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid this user refuses to acknowledge that this needs teamwork. My sources are reliable. One even includes the Norwegian royal court.68.47.64.121 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above the sources you use do not support your statements. I have gone through them all and your arguments, they do not match. It isn't about whether the sources are reliable or not. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * IP, you are already eligible for an edit warring block, but I will hold off pending talk page discussion, where I hope will participate as well. If you make the edit again you should/will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I understand your willingness to let the discussion progress, however... This IP does not appear to understand sources well (perhaps an English-learner, given his writing?) and seems unwilling to abide by edit warring policy. He's not pushing his recent edit now because he's gone quiet on WP, but will again when he resumes editing.  Moreover, he does not appear to understand what reliable sources are, and has a tendency to interpret/synthesize sources.  He does discuss, but got a little belligerent on the articles related to Murphy Brown (TV series) and continued to revert to his favored version.  I had competence concerns based on that episode alone; these new edits reinforce those concerns.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm … ”gone quiet”? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weeeeellll... He'd gone quiet when I wrote that. I did note he'd be at it again when he started editing. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  07:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP does discuss, yes, but they haven't displayed that they have an understanding of the arguments presented to them. That or they disregard any points aimed at them which don't support their own. The discussion on the Murphy Brown Season 11 talk page felt like a waste of time because they wouldn't acknowledge any arguments presented to them and pushed their own agenda. Esuka323 (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really think there's a comprehension issue. His interpretation of the term "take over" referring to the time slot scanned as though he was talking about the time slot being real estate that the new program coming in owned.  It was very odd.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  07:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Block I just reversed (I hope) a series of disruptive edits based only on blog stories. If this IP has been a problem before too, it's time to solve the problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * – 1 week, since the IP continued to revert after the above warning by User:Drmies, which was given at 18:06 on the 27th. The IP editor has been blocked twice within the past week for edit warring by User:MelanieN. They also seem to have made three reverts at Charles XIV John of Sweden. A number of editors believe the IP is not reading sources correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you consider a longer block should they edit war again in the future? They were a major hassle on the Murphy Brown pages with their poorly written WP:OR edits and their edit warring behavior. Yes they were blocked twice for this, but they clearly haven't learned that their behavior is wrong if they're doing it again. Esuka323 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:999:50:31c7:99e7:2536:3719:a990 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
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:

Also concerns of WP:COI with the IP in question appearing to really like the research by "Määttänen" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hour block to Special:Contributions/2001:999:50:31C7::/64 for edit warring with a fluctuating IP. See WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:EdJohnston. Here is another IP that has been involved with spamming this researcher. User:128.214.89.70. Fairly persistent. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP has not edited since 20 December, but report again if you notice any continuation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Swarm {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:AngeloKonecki reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 2 weeks for edit warring)

 * 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 Sofia Carson. (TW)"


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

Also on Sofia Carson and Cameron Boyce. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Swarm {talk}  07:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Johnnysama (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No."
 * 1)  "No."

I've had so many wiki disputes in the past, and I've tried to remain calm, but this blows my stack for Roxy the dog to think that Polyester is not a fabric, when it is. She just rolls it back w/o explanation. UGH. This is just the most arbitrary thing to do. We went through this nonsense a few months ago.


 * See Archive -Roxy, the dog . wooF 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Even so, you gave no reason as to why it is not. Johnnysama (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So, what would you like Admins to counsel me to do? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like a second opinion from someone else, for sure. I don't know why you're doing this, but I don't find your archived post funny. Johnnysama (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You clearly didn't read it properly then. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Johnnysama (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I answered your question truthfully. I am correct. Now I'm going to bed. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't. You just scoffed at me, and that's it. Johnnysama (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Polyester is a fiber, not a fabric. Fabrics are made from woven fibers. A polyester shirt is made from a fabric that contains a ‰ amount of polyester fibers, but the fabric is not polyester, the fiber is. The fabric will usually have another name depending on its composition. This is clearly explained in the relevant articles. This should not have to be explained to anyone who is capable of reading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, then. Case closed. I'm sorry I lost my cool there, I just wanted a second opinion. Please close this dispute down. Thank you. 00:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Polyethylene terapthalate is a polymer. We know it as Polyester. it is made into fibres, yarns, pop bottles, fabrics of many types, knitted, woven, non-woven, polar fleece etc. etc. Itself it is not a fabric Goodnight. Roxy, the dog . wooF 00:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, you win. I'm closing this now. I'm done with all this dealing. Good day. Johnnysama (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:79.104.200.101 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 875933237 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 875931820 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 875921912 by Joe Roe (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by -- Scott (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:146.115.65.100 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 875715651 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 2)  "It doesn't matter. Premier left the group too. No one in the group at any time was from Brooklyn."
 * 3)  "DJ Premier is not a founding member. The group started in Boston not Brooklyn."
 * 1)  "DJ Premier is not a founding member. The group started in Boston not Brooklyn."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Gang Starr. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor has no intention of building a collaborative encyclopedia or reviewing the rules about what gets included and where, insists on reverting only. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: is warned for edit warring at Gang Starr. But if the city of origin of this group is so important, why is there nothing about it on the talk page? And the article states that the performer known as Guru got his start in Boston in 1986, and was using the 'Gang Starr' name then. So why should Brooklyn be credited as the city of origin of the group? EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:79.107.134.94, User:Tidewings, User:Gmantakis reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: Semi, block, warning)
Page:

User being reported:, ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  IP (Tidewings)
 * 2)  IP (Tidewings)
 * 3)  IP (Tidewings)
 * 4)  Tidewings
 * 5)  Gmantakis
 * 6)  Gmantakis
 * 7)  Gmantakis
 * 8)  Tidewings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It is crystal clear that the anon IP, Tidewings, and Gmantakis are the same editor pushing a POV (see the edit summary for Tidewing's last contribution). --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not the user User:Gmantakis. And I also assume that user TaivoLinguist and Chewings72 is the same person. I am open to discuss further and prove I am not Gmantakis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your four reverts as the IP and as Tidewings is still a violation of WP:3RR and is still subject to a block on your account, since it was created for the sole purpose of skirting around the 3RR rule to continue your edit war (without opening or continuing a discussion on the Talk Page). --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My intention was to promote truth. Furthermore I still try to figure out how to enter the talk page dialogue because this is my first ever account. Taivo I think was too early in reporting me. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was your intention to avoid the WP:3RR rule and push your POV without a discussion. Your "first ever account" argument is suspicious because you opened it immediately after I requested page protection and right after your third edit as an IP. I don't believe you for one minute that this is your first experience in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist it is clear that you want to ban my comment because it contradicts your position furthermore more this is my first account ever. And if you show me how to enter in the talk page I will make these clear. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are experienced enough to push your POV in the article and write POV-pushing and insulting comments in the edit summary, then you know perfectly well how to edit on the Talk Page. You are a classic example of a WP:SPA who has come to Wikipedia (not for the first time) to push a Greek POV against established WP:CONSENSUS in articles related to Macedonia.  You came straight to this article, pushed your POV, came to three reverts, registered as a new account, and continued to push your POV thinking that no one would notice.  --Taivo (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not write POV pushing, you did. Furthermore I entered where ever I could when a red icon appeared in my account. It is obvious you want to ban me cause my position contradicts clearly yours. What is your connection with Chewings72? Let me enter the talk page. At the.moment I copy what I see on this dialogue to defend my self. Your haste to report me shows a tendency in pushing your positions with various means. From the moment I saw I could not keep my own position posted I thought to create an account to make it permanent. I still have not read the DDD section about the internet war or warring or how you call it. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You were the one writing insulting comments the first place. Tidewings talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

OK now what? Do we enter the talk page?. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys please let me know. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Also in my last edit, in the section where I provide the reason for the edit, the syntax in the phrase/sentence is incorrect due to auto correct use in my mobile. The correct phrase is 'Furthermore I can sense true passion to erase the truth by both of you editors. Why?'. Do we continue this chat or what? I need to go. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Really, why don't you answer me?? Can I log out, are we done? I need to know of what is going on while I am online and not offline. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys I log out. I will be again online later, and when I will I will leave a message here for you to know. If you don't give me the chance to further defend while being online my self from the moment this is my first account and since I asked so many times for a further discussion and talk here, it will be a kind of bias towards me as I see it. Tidewings talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's why I don't believe that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but to push a Greek nationalist POV in a controversial topic. Let's say that you are new (I don't believe that for one second, but just for the sake of discussion).  1) You went straight to a controversial topic, a controversial article, and made exactly the edit that has pushed a Greek nationalist POV in the past and been the subject of much discussion and compromise in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view throughout Wikipedia.  2) When your edit was reverted by not one, not two, but three experienced Wikipedia editors, you did not ask why, you did not start a reasonable discussion on the Talk Page, but edit warred, continuing to push your POV without discussion in your blind belief that you were right.  3) You have done absolutely nothing whatsoever in any other article, the perfect definition of a single-purpose account.  You have shown no evidence whatsoever that you have come to Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, but only to push your Greek nationalist agenda, accusing experienced editors of bias simply because we didn't bow to your Greek POV.  If you and Gmantakis are not the same person, then he/she was sitting right beside you in the internet cafe and you were tag-teaming the article to push your POV.
 * If the administrators reading this thread don't want to block you outright for your disruptive behavior (as they blocked Gmantakis), then I suggest that you be subject to a topic ban that prohibits you from editing any article on the topic of Macedonia until you prove that you are a productive and community-minded editor here for Wikipedia and not just here to plant the Greek flag in controversial articles. --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, despite all your protestations here that you don't know how to get to the article's Talk Page, you had no problem whatsoever finding your user Talk Page with the link that led you here. You even created a new section on your own Talk Page and made a comment there.  If you can find your way to your user Talk page, then you have zero excuse for not finding your way to the article's Talk Page and participating in a discussion there.  --Taivo (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the text at WP:3RR it became clear that the last edit by Tidewings also counts as part of the edit war--resulting in five reverts on his part, not counting the three reverts by Gmantakis. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "my position contradicts clearly yours." And for those of us who are not mind-readers, could you describe your position? Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page was semiprotected, User:Gmantakis was blocked by another admin. User:Tidewings is warned. Please report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr Samkiv Kumar reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked and semi-protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User, and a bunch of ip editors (starting 117.225 / 117.234) keep adding the same unsourced / non-notable content to article. They have been warned a number of times by myself and other users and have now descended into WP:PA on users who are reverting them. e.g.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * I see that they attempted to report me earlier, happy for my behaviour to be reviewed too.Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I initially reported the user at WP:AIV, though I removed it, as on reflection I thought this page was more appropriate (rather than Forum shopping). Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * and -- Scott (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rohit Sharma14 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I along with other editors have asked this editor to follow Wikipedia protocol about editing, providing reliable sources and taking any disagreements to the talk page. I have opened a talk page discussion and posted on his talk page. All to no avail. This editor continues to edit war and ignore any advice in the edit summaries and talk page posts. I can see no other option than to report the editor - initially for edit warring - but in general for not following Wikipedia protocol which shows other failings in wanting to contribute to a collaborative encyclopaedia. Please either intervene in whichever way is appropriate Robynthehode (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Scott (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User:73.204.112.140 reported by User:Victor Schmidt (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 876210704 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) ROLLBACK - User gives no CLEAR documented reasons for undoing Good Faith Edits."
 * 2)  "/* Calculation */ "Calculation" is FACTUALLY incorrect. Quoted authoritative references with correct calculation. USER: Smkolins insists on reverting to INCORRECT info citing unauthorized sources. References removed before from areas NOT related were done accidentally; other references which FACTUALLY REFLECT INCORRECT information were removed intentionally."
 * 3)  "/* Calculation */ "Calculation" is FACTUALLY incorrect. Quoted authoritative references with correct calculation. USER: Smkolins insists on reverting to INCORRECT info citing unauthorized sources. References removed before were done accidentally."
 * 4)  ""Calculation" is FACTUALLY incorrect. Quoted authoritative references with correct calculation. USER: Smkolins insists on reverting to INCORRECT info citing unauthorized sources"


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


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


 * Comments:

Seems to be on a Mission; Section On Talkpage: Talk:Huqúqu'lláh Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Block length based on absence of communication apart from legalistic orders to other users.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Mélencron reported by User:107.145.97.234 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [(cur | prev) 13:56, 30 December 2018‎ Mélencron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,895 bytes) -119‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 107.145.97.234 (talk): The other independents were on the ballot, you weren't. stop it with your vanity obsession. (TW)) (undo) Tag: Undo]
 * 2) [(cur | prev) 05:24, 29 December 2018‎ Mélencron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,895 bytes) -119‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by 107.145.97.234: Not a ballot-listed candidate (these sections don't include extensive listings of write-in candidates, though sometimes the results tables will if a registered write-in). (TW)) (undo) Tag: Undo]
 * 3) [(cur | prev) 23:09, 27 December 2018‎ Mélencron (talk | contribs)‎ . . (85,895 bytes) -286‎ . . (Reverted to revision 875482444 by SecretName101 (talk): Last good revision. (TW)) (undo) Tag: Undo]

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

'''I have attempted to resolve the issue with the user, however they clear their talkpage and claimto be on a wikibreak yet persist to remove my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mélencron''' [diff]
 * I notified Mélencron here about the filing of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I typically refuse to engage with editors who are clearly acting in bad faith, though I'll make an exception here. It's a content dispute, this isn't in violation of 3RR (note the date ranges and lack of a fourth revert), and my edits are consistent with practice elsewhere on other election articles. The IP in question is clearly on something of a narcissistic crusade and is upset that they're not apparently notable enough to be shown, and my reversions are in keeping with existing practice on U.S. election articles, as noted in one of the edit summaries above. Mélencron (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP edior made a similar complaint at WP:AN. So far as edit warring goes, the user has only listed three reverts over a four-day period, so this report is likely to close as no violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Mélencron has used two main points to remove my information 1. Media coverage, 2. Not being on the mayoral ballot. On the very same page, and in the same section, there are 5 persons who were never on any ballot. In addition, i have had 3 media articles written on me. Mélencron is personally attacking me and calling into question the validity of the Wikipedia editorial model and the validity of Wikipedia as a source of information. Might as well call this website the Onion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.97.234 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – WP:3RR was not broken. The IP editor should be aware that if they are the candidate in question, they should not be making this kind of edit at all. See WP:COI. You should let others decide whether Wikipedia ought to mention your candidacy. This is a situation where not all candidates were included in the article and where some judgment was being used. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Two editors warned)
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:

Slightly more than 24 hours, but user is removing citations from reliable sources, which they themselves requested, even in spite of EW warning. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I find Softlavender's behaviour frankly jaw-dropping. Since 31 December I've made just 6 edits to the article, not one of them, except the last just an hour ago, a reversion. He/she, on the other hand, reverts almost everything I do. (For some reason he/she doesn't seem to have minded that I deleted a section on the Yazidi flood myth). The reason given in the edit summaries is usually that there is no consensus for the individual edits. I've been around long enough to know that consensus isn't needed for edits unless they're challenged - in which case there needs to be discussion on the Talk page in an effort to thrash things out. Yes, there was a discussion on the talk page, and I initiated it - this is proper procedure. But it was very like hitting my head against a brick wall, as Softlavender made no effort to engage with my arguments. My impression of Softlavender is that he/she is displaying signs of ownership towards the article, and this leads him/her into modes of behaviour that verge on bullying. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it doesn't need prima donnas.PiCo (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every single edit was a revert. Please read WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You have been removing citations and cited information. If someone replaces your deletions, you need to follow WP:BRD and get consensus on the talkpage for your deletions before re-deleting citations and cited information. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, the dispute process is not for arguing. Address whatever remarks you have to the admins.PiCo (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm addressing your claims. If you can't refute my points, you can't refute them. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No 3RR occurred, but User:PiCo and User:Softlavender are warned for edit warring. If the reverts continue it is likely that admin action will be taken. Does anyone need help in opening RfCs on the talk page? Please don't waste everyone's time in an unnecessary dispute. You are both very experienced and have made good contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:RexxS (Result: WilliamJE warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Version prior to the first revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 10:22, 25 December 2018: WilliamJE reverts 92.234.107.214
 * 23:22, 30 December 2018: WilliamJE reverts 178.92.151.242
 * 12:26, 1 January 2019: WilliamJE reverts Pigsonthewing
 * 14:36, 1 January 2019: WilliamJE reverts RexxS
 * 15:27, 1 January 2019: WilliamJE reverts RexxS

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on talk page – now removed and therefore acknowledged

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018 – sources adduced to show the definition of an incident and that the BBC describes it as an incident. WilliamJE dismisses the BBC as "immaterial".

Comments:

WilliamJE has edit-warred five times now against four other editors to force his preferred version of the template. The discussions on the talk page have no support for his position, while three other editors have opposed it. I've warned him on his talk page and given him an opportunity to self=revert. I now believe admin intervention is necessary to prevent further edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:WilliamJE is warned. They may be blocked the next time they edit this template to exclude the Gatwick drone incident, unless they have got prior consensus on the talk page. So far nobody supports their view. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Shivamsethi reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: Shivamsethi has not chosen to use the article talk page.

Comments:

Not sure what Shivamsethi's issue is with the article. Possible responsibility for Muhammad of Ghor's death. Four reverts at this time and no attempt to use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cmringel reported by User:Moosehadley (Result: Page salted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Solar Road and Soil Regeneration Hybrid Energy System (HG) (3.4.6)"
 * 2)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Solar Road and Soil Regeneration Hybrid Energy System. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user keeps recreating an article about solar roads. The article has been Speedy Deleted several times over the last few months and the user keeps recreating it. He has also made vandalizing edits to his own article such as this edit  Moose  hadley  22:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Solar Road and Soil Regeneration Hybrid Energy System was recreated after being deleted twice, so I have salted the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:Zorro naranjo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

Hello, I've seen the alert about four reverts, WP:3RR wasn't broken yet, but I think that there is a little special case, because the next revert by the user My very best wishes undoubtedly will be his fourth. But his behavior - the removal of information despite the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page - indicates that he does not intend to seek a consensus, but simply wants to clear the article from uncomfortable to the person, but confirmed, facts. So, it can't be violation of WP:BLP. On the article's TP, I sorted out the added materials, and indicated myself that only two cases could be discussed. My very best wishes even trying to delete information about Anatoliy Hrytsenko's earnings, confirmed by... the Hrytsenko's Official site... So, I don't want any sanctions to the user My very best wishes, I just ask you to inform him that his next attempt to remove information, confirmed with RS, from the article, will lead to some measures. Zorro naranjo (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no violation here, there was a revert on 26 Dec, one on 27 Dec and one on 2 Jan. The material is being removed on BLP grounds.  The last revert was by another editor.   needs to use the talk page and gain consensus for the edits they want to add to the article.  ~ GB fan 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already substantiated my edits on the article's talk page. The link to the discussion above. I see no BLP violations since the information is strongly confirmed by reliable sources. Such as Ukrayinska Pravda, Korrespondent, Ukrainian Independent Information Agency, Ukrainian News Agency, 1+1, Newspaper in Ukrainian, KP, Segodnya, Gordonua, Espreso TV, 24 TV Channel, Vesti, etc. And I don't think that such "arguments" of My very best wishes as "recently included by a red-linked account" (I'm not "account", but user) and "source requirement in English" are very constructive.


 * I also have analyzed all the paragraphs that the My very best wishes (and recently Calton) deletes. All the discussion is on the talk page.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , just because you do not see any BLP violations, that doesn't mean they aren't there. You can also go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask for further input if you do not believe there are BLP violations.  You are the person who wants it added in to the article, you need to consensus that it belongs.  You need to gain consesnsus on the talk page to include it.  ~ GB fan 15:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:75.182.115.183 reported by User:Esuka (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: IP has decided to not use the article talk page.

Comments:

IP has persisted over the course of 24 hours to revert multiple editors without discussing on the talkpage. Oddly enough they seem familiar with some Wikipedia policy, just not the ones that tell users not to edit war clearly! Esuka (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have started a talk page discussion. I did not revert more than three times in 24 hours. I acknowledge that edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations, and if I am blocked for that reason I must accept the consequences. But if I'm guilty of edit warring, so is user BoogerD. I suspect that I am being targeted here instead of BoogerD because I am an IP editor. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your forth reversion was around 25 hours after the first, this is still edit warring. You had no excuse to revert two seperate editors and edit war. I would say his three reversions were justified because you were being disruptive. The onus was always on you to take the issue to the articles talkpage. Coincidentally you did this after I pointed out that you had broken WP:3RR and this report was written. Esuka (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also you being an IP editor is irrelevant, I've seen plenty of helpful non edit warring IPs on the Wiki TV pages that I would wish would get an account so I could thank them for the efforts they make. Esuka (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, I would disagree that the onus was on me any more than it was on BoogerD, per WP:BRD. The material was added (B in BRD). I reverted and requested a source per WP:V (R in BRD). BoogerD should have started a discussion instead of continuing to revert (D in BRD). But I would agree that both of us share that responsibility. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD doesn't give you the right to edit war on television pages. When the information you removed was restored, it was always up to you to make a case for your edit on the talkpage. You didn't do this before breaking WP:3RR. Esuka (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it gives me the right to edit war. I said the onus of starting a discussion is on both me and BoogerD. If you think BoogerD had no responsibility to discuss after I reverted (R in BRD) I'm afraid I would disagree. We both did. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I have little interest continuing this little back and forth over who is responsible. When there's an edit dispute on the page, the status quo should remain per WP:STATUSQUO. When you removed the information from the page and were reverted for doing so, it was always up to you to create a discussion on the talkpage to gain consensus for your edits. You didn't do this despite having plenty of time to do so, and instead you reverted two different editors who contested your removal of the information. I would say you became disruptive at this point and the editors reverting you were justified to do so. You broke WP:3RR, end of. Esuka (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can easily stop "this little back and forth" by not continuing to comment. I agree that I had a responsibility to discuss. I disagree that BoogerD had no responsibility. I understand that you think he was exempt from the discussion requirement, so we can leave it at that if you will and save the admins the time in having to read an extended disagreement. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

To any admin reviewing this report, please see Talk:Homecoming (TV series), which was closed to affirm WP:V, a simple matter of policy which is all I was seeking to fulfill. I realize that this does not exonerate me if it is determined that I have edit warred, but I do think it points to the involvement of other editors in any edit warring. Thanks. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you have broken WP:3RR, the four diffs posted above prove that. That's not up for debate. And could you please read my comments properly, you're clearly not understanding what I'm saying here. I never said BoogerD never had a duty to discuss, I said numerous times on this very discussion that it was up to YOU to create a discussion on the talkpage of the article rather than reverting repeatedly. You were reverted by three different editors, including myself, and only made an effort to discuss when this report was made. Esuka (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And you have chosen to misunderstand my comments. My comments were directed to administrators, not you. Please drop the stick and move on. All of us have much more important things to do. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to revisit this discussion when an admin has decided on the case. It would have been a much shorter discussion had you understood you have violated WP:3RR, but oh well. Esuka (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It seems that agreement has been reached on the talk page. There had been a good faith question on whether the information being reverted was properly sourced. This should still not be relied on as an excuse for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? So the IP editor gets a "Get out of jail free" card because they discussed on the talkpage after breaking WP:3RR? I can't say I agree with that. It sets a bad example to allow editors that edit war a free pass because they raised a discussion after the fact, but whatever. I won't make the effort to report edit warring editors anymore if this is the case. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. If the IP continues to revert, appropriate steps will be taken. It was hard to close this one because the closure might be taken as a vote that WP:V doesn't matter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect though, the rules clearly state that breaking WP:3RR results in a warning or a 24 hour block for first offense. The IP broke this rule and has escaped punishment entirely. I really don't agree with this situation because the IPs behavior warranted some kind of action, and the inaction sends the wrong message. The IP clearly won't revert further because the discussion has gone in their favor for now, and this report clearly has been ineffective. There also is very little deterrence for the IP not to do the same thing again on a different page in the future. But you are the admin so I have to respect your decision which I will. Esuka (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The rules of WP:EW state that "Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours". That remains true. When there is more than one option of what to do, I usually take the minimum action that will allow the normal work on the article to continue. It seems that the 'single camera' issue has been laid to rest for now, so there is nothing to prevent with a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: this user has a lengthy history of edit-warring and incivility, most recently with his edit summary {removing his ANI notice). And while his activity from this ip address dates only from 2016, there indications he goes back further. I think this user's pattern of behavior warrants a broader examination. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Rowan Forest reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (as any of the changes below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (self-reverted, but only to move it to a different location here)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (after having read my 3RR warning, as evidenced by deleting it)
 * 8)  (rv'd my cn tag, which I added because I'd hit 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  (plus there had been some earlier discussion)

Comments:

Rowan Forest clearly thinks he's right, but doesn't understand how to read the image. Regardless, he should resolve it on the talk page rather than reverting two other editors. And he certainly shouldn't be deleting cn tags. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I discussed this in the Talk page with both users and in the edit summaries: The image presented by NASA and labeled by NASA (10 miles between lobes' center) is referenced, and it was also discussed by the researchers live. The first user thought 10 miles was the total objects length kept deleting the entry until he realized his mistake -reluctantly. Now this user denies the references cited show that photograph ("spurious number and spurious references"), he denies it is labeled and keeps deleting it. After explaining in the Talk page the importance of the context he keeps on denying NASA published this estimate, and denies the 10 miles bar actually represents 10 miles. In short: the estimate was presented by NASA, published by reliable 3rd party sources and I quote them. Deletion of this number in the face of publication (and live presentation) by NASA is simply warring without a purpose.  Your call. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This means you will wait for consensus before changing the article again? EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any editor wanting to chip in is free to see the NASA labeled photo with the 10 mile bar on it. The context of the discussion regarding the 10 mile separation is in the video of the press conference, and how they used the 10 mile distance to conclude it is a single body. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Closed with a warning for the 3RR violation but no block, per Rowan Forest's assurance above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I have removed the contested material until this is resolved. Please ping me if you respond further. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The context of the measurement between the centers was the prediction of a single body/contact binary. The NASA measurement and prediction were correct, its deletion was proven unjustified. Since this was confirmed today by images, it is no longer relevant. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User:103.224.161.36 reported by User:Cristabel0 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [at 9:10 2 January 2019]
 * 2) [at 23:52 1 January 2019]
 * 3) [23:49 1 January 2019]
 * [4:16 28 December 2018]

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

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

Comments:


 * against changing date notation, but this appears to be a perfectly honest mistake. Swarm  {talk}  00:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:75.135.154.124 reported by User:XXeducationexpertXX (Result: Full Protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Fully protected by for one week.  ~ GB fan 12:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: I'm not a sysop. It was protected by DMacks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Gwigley reported by User:Railfan23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User:Gwigley is a single-purpose account that has been created to argue a very specific point on Talk:Doctor Who (series 11). This user has used personal attacks against multiple editors, but particularly User:Alex 21. Gwigley has been warned multiple times to be civil on their talk page, but just laughs it off. They are now reverting attempts to redact their personal attacks on Talk:Doctor Who (series 11), and have done so four times. I have no particular opinion on the underlying dispute and have not been involved on the talk page, but am concerned about Gwigley's behavior and flouting of 3RR. Railfan23 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks and edit-warring to reinstate them.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:184.147.29.17 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Box office and critical reception */"
 * 2)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 3)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 5)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 6)  "/* Mortal Kombat II references */"
 * 7)  "/* External links */"
 * 8)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 9)  "/* Behind the scenes */"
 * 1)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 2)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 3)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Mortal Kombat II references */"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* Box Office and Critical Reception */"
 * 7)  "/* Behind the scenes */"
 * 1)  "/* Behind the scenes */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * User was blocked for vandalism yesterday. Any attempt I made to sway them to stop was flat out ignored. This is a new IP of a very troublesome troll, [some] [others] [here] Crboyer (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * . This is a global block due to cross-wiki vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this -, I blocked the user on en.wiki for 3 months also. Fish +Karate 14:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: User being reported:

Tag-bombing the LR Linkrot template onto two articles, one being a new split from the other. Now to some extent they have a point: there are bare URLs in there. But there are many refs in these articles, there are very few bare ones, and worse referencing problems here were due to this same editor being careless with their own edits and not bothering to check them after having done the split, and having broken them themselves. Also, see the instructions for using the Linkrot tag – it's specific that editors should attempt cleanup themselves first, or at least request help with it. Not just tag-and-run.

The tags are mis-placed, they're mis-used (there is no point scatter-gunning tags like this if they don't state just where the problem is), and most of all I'm damned if I'm going to keep fixing these refs for another editor who can't be bothered to do it themselves, claims "I'm on my phone" is some sort of excuse, and is instantly edit-warring to cause edit-conflicts and 4RR restore the tag instead. If you can't or won't fix it yourself, at least don't get in the way of those who are.

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


 * 1)
 * 2)

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

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

User_talk:Jax_0677

Comments:

 Comment - I was editing from my mobile phone when I added LR, which is in agreement with guidelines that I set forth here. Andy Dingley removed the LR tags without first resolving the issue. I stopped adding the LR tags as soon as I found out from Andy that I would be brought to ANI. I was going to bring Andy to ANI for removing tags without resolving the issue, but Andy beat me to doing so. It is extremely difficult to use Reflinks when one is editing from a mobile phone, I therefore add the LR tag to articles, so that the URLs can be fixed. If I am in violation of the WP:3rr policy, then Andy must be in violation of that very same policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's so important to fix these bare URLs, why are you so persistent in 4RR re-tagging that you're edit conflicting the guy who's fixing them? Are you not losing sight of the whole point here? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15 (2016) Evidently not a new issue either. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Reply - I just took a look at my edits to the two Amazon articles, and the only thing that I did was add the LR tag. AFAIK, I did not negate any of the fixing of bare URLs. If I did, show me where I undid the fixing of a bare URL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Now what is this about? Editing the merge tags (to clean up the duplication your split caused) to redirect discussion from where it had already been, and to have it linked differently on both pages?  What possible point is there in such an edit, other than simple disruption and an ignoring of all other editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  Reply - Sorry about that. I have reconsidered, and have established a subsection on the talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - An editor has now inappropriately merged History of Amazon to Amazon.com. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. The article now has far bigger problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:109.93.252.56 reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Today */ I reserached further, many strange things comes from Nigeria cos of /war, elections, political situacion/ all should be taken with reserve cos of personal/group povs etc. As I wrote before it is not news reporting website it is Wikipedia article."
 * 2)  "Added History and Today section, Critisism source moved under today section cos it is not news reporting article, it is Wikipedia article."
 * 3)  "Explained in my previous edits. Not here to push personal pov articles and reporting and collecting news this is wikipedia article not some news portal."
 * 4)  "History and Today /present day/ subsections"
 * 1)  "History and Today /present day/ subsections"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "+note"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Criticisms Section */ re"


 * Comments:

Using this IP and Special:Contributions/109.92.9.66, they're repeatedly removing or attempting to obscure valid criticism, reported by NYT, CNN, BBC and all mainstream Nigerian papers. They neither respond to note on their talkpage nor on the article's talkpage –Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Reza karimian767 reported by User:Jimi Henderson (Result: Blocked)
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: diff

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

Comments: --Jimi Henderson (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:190.173.142.241 reported by User:Moosehadley (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* Contested deletion */ new section"
 * 4)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD  */ new section"
 * 5)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */"
 * 1)  "/* Contested deletion */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD  */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */"
 * 1)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD  */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */"
 * 1)  "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by 190.173.142.241 (talk): unexplained speedy deletion template removal (HG) (3.4.6)"
 * 2)   "Reverted edits by 190.173.142.241 (talk): unexplained speedy deletion template removal (HG) (3.4.6)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – Special:Contributions/190.173.128.0/17 blocked 1 month by User:Ian.thomson. See the block log of the range as well as User talk:190.173.240.80 for background. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CultureArchitect reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 876813277 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) Again, you have removed relevant references citing several independent sources. The edit comments provided were factually incorrect referencing WP:SPAM and stating that all the sources actually link back to a single report (while they are independent investigations). Please stick to WP:V"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) to last revision by CultureArchitect. (TW)"
 * 3)  "/* Chinese internment camps */ Actually it's according to many reports backed by many independent news sources backed by satellite imagery of the interment camps which are too big to hide..."


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

This is not the first time the user has been abusing Twinkle to revert editors (more established than himself/herself): ,
 * Comments:

User:Mrspaceowl reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 5 January 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:01, 5 January 2019
 * 2) 14:12, 5 January 2019
 * 3) 14:16, 5 January 2019
 * 4) 14:22, 5 January 2019
 * 5) 14:28, 5 January 2019
 * 6) 14:44, 5 January 2019 (is a revert of this edit)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 14:15, 5 January 2019
 * 2) 14:20, 5 January 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User ignoring WP:BRD and legitimate objections of two other users to repeatedly insert the same text, while accusing those same users of "tyranny", apparently in a crusade to right great wrongs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours, I suspect if this continues the next one might be permanent. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyjukilo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 876930226 by Tsumikiria (talk) Consensus? You are but one person. I fully understand your point of view, but if you read the article, as well as other statements made by Alexandria, she makes it very clear that the ancestry is extremely remote, which should be Wikipedias job to clarify"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 876929139 by Tsumikiria (talk) Everything said is clear from the source, Alexandria has said their her ancestry is extremely remote, from 500 years ago"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */ Regarding the last edit: I agree it was a bad phrasing. Alexandria, as she herself said, has no recent Sephardic ancestry, neither culturally, religiously or ethnically. The current version puts her on the same level as those with recent ancestry or a ethnically crypto-Jewish background. She is not more Jewish than other Puerto Ricans. All she has done is some regular geneology and this should be emphasized"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */ See article. Most Latinos have more than one Sephardic ancestor."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"


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

Tsumikiria (T/C) 13:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

I will update the page with accordance to her own statements Hyjukilo (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Fairly clear 4R. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrismccown reported by User:RolandR (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 876955663 by Calton (talk) Please use talk page before reverting. You are reverting other contributions not related to sourcing as well."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 876955663 by RolandR (talk) Your reverts violate Wikipedia edit warring rules."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 876952793 by Ebyabe (talk) No reason to revert"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 876941807 by Wikaviani (talk)  The book is not partisan.  Nothing controversial is in the posted content.  Please share your views on talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 876886878 by Bidgee (talk) Sourcing is valid"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 876876564 by Wikaviani (talk)  Stop reverting, you are violating WP policey in an edit war"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 876872435 by CorbieVreccan (talk) The sources are valid and not COI"
 * 8)  "the article is sourced"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 876862563 by CorbieVreccan (talk)  Everything is sourced.  The Ewing crest badge is too old to have copywright protection. .  Please stop trolling my edits."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 876844156 by CorbieVreccan (talk)  There is no claim of Norse origins in here."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 876844156 by CorbieVreccan (talk)  There is no claim of Norse origins in here."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This is targeted harrasment of all User:Chrismccown contributions: Please see full conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Determined_SPA_with_declared_COI Chrismccown (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect (as I've said before!), I think the right way to look at this is that the other conversation you linked to was an attempt to avoid this filing. However, you don't seem to be taking on board what pretty much everyone else is saying, so this became unavoidable.  I'd suggest a deep breath and a bit of listening before going forward, in whatever manner you choose.  All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I look forward to a review of what's going on here.Chrismccown (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wolfman12405 reported by User:MShabazz (Result: Blocked for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:41, 4 January

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 7:45, 5 January
 * 2) 11:27, 5 January
 * Note: Per WP:AIPIA, the article is subject to a 1RR restriction.
 * Edit warring has continued since I warned the editor and notified him about this report.
 * 17:06
 * 17:35

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * When I notified the editor that he had violated 1RR, he called me a hypocrite crybaby. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Comment) The user previously warred to insert "violent Hamas terrorists" onto Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and tried to make the article imply that the subject endorses the organization. He also restored another POV warrior's content on the same article. I don't think this user is here to improve this project, at least not on ARBPIA and AP2 topics. They're here to launch personal justice. An indef would certainly save everyone else's time than two topic bans, per a quote I assume y'all remember. Tsumikiria (T/C) 16:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) u r a crybaby hypocrite, just look at how u act, and when people do the same u revert their edits and run to cry over it to the officials.

2) I NEVER warred about hamas - who are a violent terrorist group, now that u mention it - in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page, that's a lie! All I did was add that she admitted to have no knowledge about the Israeli-arab conflict. Shame upon urself. #liar!--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In light of the editor's comments and his continued edit-warring, after I warned him and notified him about this report, I believe a long block or perhaps a topic ban may be appropriate. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a clear-cut case.
 * Ist revert 11:27, 5 January 2019‎
 * 2nd revert 17:06, 5 January 2019‎
 * 3rd revert 17:35, 5 January 2019‎


 * 18:03, 5 January 2019‎ warned of IR infraction and asked to self revert


 * 20:10, 5 January 2019‎ refuses to do so.


 * 17:05, 5 January 2019‎ Regardless of ur envy &/ hatred towards the Jews for returning here.’ Gross WP:AGF violation  in suggesting that, in disagreeing with his edit, I am an antisemite.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a month. I nearly pressed "indefinite" here, mainly for the abuse of other editors, but if another block is necessary if will almost certainly end there. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyte35 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Flyte35 has been simultaneously edit warring at William IV of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:HMITFilms reported by User:TedEdwards (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 877147758 by DonQuixote (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 877147424 by TedEdwards (talk) (In 'Rose' he enters the TARDIS and exits in another location, meaning by all definition he travelled with the Doctor)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 877146606 by TedEdwards (talk) (The official wikipedia page for a companion states "the term "companion" refers to a character who travels with, or shares the adventures of the Doctor." Mickey smith travels with the Doctor in "Rose".)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 877144629 by DonQuixote (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 877130039 by TedEdwards (talk) (Is commonly accepted as a companion for 9. Also is the second person to travel in the TARDIS in the revival series)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content to the page. -- Ted Edwards  22:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Found another revert on same page. Also has warned the user for adding unsourced content three times today on User talk:HMITFilms. -- Ted Edwards  22:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Edit war seems to be continuing, with revert by  at  -- Ted  Edwards  22:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC) And they've done it again (at . -- Ted  Edwards  01:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)