Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383

User:Ankurc.17 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link (the second one was before the fourth revert)

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

Comments:

Ankurc.17 keeps adding a tournament to the above page, which fails the inclusion critera that was agreed by the Cricket Project last year. I explained this here on their talkpage and have offered to help discuss this further.

However, they've just simply ignored the WP:CONSENSUS that was reached, and my offer to discuss this further was also ignored. The only comms I've had is via their edit summaries, such as this one that ends with "Also stay away from my user page" and this personal attack calling me a bully.

For every instance of the text being added, I went to the user's talkpage to explain why it should not be added, before removing it myslef. I'd forgotten until now, but I've had a previous similar experience with this editor (March 2018) about edit-warring where the user was warned about edit-warring AND to stop with the personal attacks.

 Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah.... The user is a bully and can't stand when some one else stands up to him.... Ban me or block me... but this so called bully cant be allowed to get away... I am not the first person with whom he has had issues... It should be noted that this guy has had issues earlier as well with many other people....

--Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's true, I've been blocked before, however since my last unblock early last year, I have had zero problems with anyone. If you can find any evidence to contradict this, then you are more than welcome to supply it here. I'm not sure how explaining a project consensus, in polite terms with the offer to discuss further is "bullying". You edit summaries and reply here suggest you don't want to be helped in this matter, with your continued edit-wars and personal attacks, despite being told not to do this previously.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussing something before deleting is not an offer for discussion.... And since there is no written proof about not adding any tournaments with International status.. Dont really get your objections... --Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Clear violation of 3RR and above does not show any regret or indication that they will stop edit warring &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable... Lugnuts also violated the # R rule... BLOCK ME PERMANENTLY>.. I AM GOING TO REVERT BACK and not let this bullying go....

User:The enemies of god reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Clearly a sock puppet or a meat puppetper WP:DUCK

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:







Comments:

never tried to discuss the point in article talk page nor in my talk page. He did not answer to my post on his talk page, although the use of an IP login for his last revert (with edit summary "No nedd D.Lazard) is an indication that he has read my posts. Also, he edits regularly since 2007. So, he is not a new user who may ignore Wikipedia rules. D.Lazard (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected, due to mild socking concern. Neither User:D.Lazard nor User:The enemies of god has exceeded three reverts, but from here on they should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:192:4c80:1bdd:c882:bcbf:5842:647e reported by User:TF Munat (Result: Semi, Block)
Page:

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

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

..and more in the past.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Note: The user keeps changing the IPV6 so it's difficult to warn them. However, warring spreads across the same subnet. I did so in edit messages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This page is constantly suffering from edit-warring from IPs and most recently wikipuffery which resulted in a ban to those users and requiring auto-confirmed or confirmed access. Now this IP user is constantly reverting the revert of his/her/their initial change. There is a discussion on the talk page (where it becomes clear of the same user's IPV6 address usage, same subnet in reverts and reply). I noticed that when another user challenged this user to provide credible information/source on the claim, and asked why he/she/they are warring, the reply was "listen to your own advice hypocrite." in the revert message. 14:03, 18 January 2019.

The funny part is the change that they are trying to make despite the complete opposite being written in the first line of the same paragraph! It states - "Columbia has three official undergraduate colleges." - accurately from the source. The user adds "The fourth undergraduate college, Barnard College..." and proceeds to add it to the dropdown list, clearly not even reading the paragraph they are editing. Which can be easily nullified from Columbia's Official website "three undergraduate schools". It's hard but I will still want to assume good faith, that the user is confused about the distinction of schools from the "greater Columbia University community" - where there are many (20 total from all affiliates), including undergraduate and graduate schools, and "Undergraduate schools from Columbia University", where there are 3 - as stated by Columbia itself. The article is about Columbia University and it should follow the official sources from Columbia University to maintain this distinction. I have included this information from the official sources with the hope that the user now understands the change and follows WP:POINT. (TF Munat (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Result: Page semiprotected and IP range blocked one week by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:MarchOrDie (Result: Both 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: [link]

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

Comments:


 * I was asked yesterday to protect the page here: for this article: because I am one of the editors who brought it to Featured article status. I am protecting the article against unwarranted and unwanted changes and vandalism. I am not edit warring although User:MarchOrDie is edit warring. He does not seem to understand this featured article's imagery is needed to remain as is. I am being harassed by this editor who does not understand that I am protecting this article...Modernist (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Modernist and User:MarchOrDie are both warned for edit warring on image sizes. The size question is now being discussed on the article talk page. Please participate there and follow WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. This war took place on 18 January while the article was on the main page as Today's Featured Article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DonutsAndBakewells reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -  changes the image in the infobox to the same image that is used in Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S. season) that doesn't have an appropriate WP:FUR to be used on the article
 * 2)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.
 * 1)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.
 * 1)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.
 * 1)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.
 * 1)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.
 * 1)  - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but  reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) 3RR violated on January 16, 2019  3RR left on talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1) Discussion about the infobox image DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing.
 * 2) Discussion about the 1st HOH DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing.

Comments:


 * Based on past history this user should know to discuss disputed edits on the talk page as they were previously blocked for edit warring on a different reality TV show article back in November 2018. Not to mention this user added false information to the article being discussed on 15:31, January 13, 2019 for no reason. The editor doesn't appear to want to discuss any of the issues on the talk page.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long term edit warring about the infobox image. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad reported by User:ImprovedWikiImprovment (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) After 4 reverts in 24 hours

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1) On the user's talk page

Comments:


 * I have already explained to the editor that a discussion at Talk:New York City dictated that the primary name for the City of New York, except in circumstances where it could be confused with the state, is "New York". The user has failed to accept this, saying that the discussion related only to the infobox of the New York City page. While true, it was decided to change the title of that infobox because the name "New York City", both in real life and in Wikipedia, is primarily a disambiguator; the primary, and most common name is "New York". In these circumstances on the New York (state) article, there is no possible confusion due to mention of city nearby or, in one case, a list of cities. They have violated the 3 revert rule also, and failed to properly listen to me.  IWI  ( chat ) 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Response: Once IWI was reverted for inappropriately extrapolating a discussion's outcome to other articles (which he admits above) and was first reverted, he should have just stopped. Instead he has continued to revert, both in the above article and at Los Angeles, where he's been reverted by multiple editors. He really needs to stop acting as though his extrapolation has any consensus and just walk away from the idea. But as seen by the refusal to stop after he was first reverted he does seem to have an issue with that. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t quite understand how that is inappropriate; since people agreed that the primary name is "New York" (no not just in the infobox but generally), saying "Largest city: New York City" is nonsenseical as nobody is going to think that Largest city in New York State – is New York State. Therefore, the disambiguating word "city" can be removed. Like I said, another conclusion in that discussion was that "New York City" is primarily a disambiguator. Also, that isn’t an adequate reason to break the three-revert rule, .  IWI  ( chat ) 13:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While some contributors explained that as their reason for supporting the shorter infobox header, not all did, and more importantly that was not the topic of discussion. The discussion was exclusively about the infobox. It is inappropriate extrapolation to assume that just because someone might agree with displaying an infobox header one way that they would support removing the use to the word "city" in every instance where the word "city" is nearby.
 * PS, I didn't break 3RR. The first two edits above are considered one revert, not two, as there were no intervening edits.
 * PPS, don't need to ping me here. It's on my watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You did break the 3 revert rule, you made 3 reverts.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 3RR is more than three reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally, please discuss this rather than continuing to revert each other. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but reverting repeatedly against consensus violates policy, even if he thinks it doesn’t apply; it does.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A consensus over a narrow discussion at one article is not a universally applicable consensus, despite your repeated assertions. And reverting during discussion is still edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – You need an admin to close this report, though the result is the same. The first two diffs are consecutive, so 3RR was not broken. Please get consensus on the talk page instead of going on indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Agreement)
Page:

User being reported:

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

This started as 3RR on Los Angeles-class submarine a few days ago, with bulk stripping of wikilinks, reverted by. I warned them on user talk:, which was blanked immediately, indicating that they had read this and were aware of the issue. It continued today though, with reversions against, who also issued a warning and was reverted.

Mostly though, this is about a long-running pattern of edits from someone who describes themselves as "a professional editor". Clearly other editors are a lesser species, and our views count for nothing. After all "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Wikipedia.". Particularly when we disagree with Dillidor's editing style, which mostly seems to consist of stripping wls (including removing all links from one article to another, even when it's a significant relationship). There is long-standing opposition to this, from a range of editors, relating to a range of articles. See User talk:Dilidor and other comments there. But the response has been "dismissive" to say the least, and they'te happy to >3RR edit-war to push their viewpoint, which makes it impossible for policy-observing editors to do anything about. Thus ANEW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also see User talk:Dilidor Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I will point out that a "war" requires at least two parties, yet Thewolfchild was not warned for his or her part in the conflict. But the bigger issue here is the hypocritical charges being leveled by Andy Dingley. He is incensed by a perceived supercilious attitude in me—while he snidely foists upon me his own attitude that "other editors are a lesser species". He quotes my humorous use of a meme that is used widely on Wikipedia, choosing to ignore its tongue-in-cheek intention in order to build up his straw man portrayal of my character. He claims that my editorial contributions "consist of stripping" wikilinks; this demonstrates either a gross ignorance of my edits around Wikipedia, or else a deliberately false statement. I will offer the benefit of the doubt and assume that Andy Dingley is simply ignorant.

I object to Andy Dingley's persistently abusive tone, both here and on my talk page. It is this tone which has brought me to the point of choosing to cease my participation in this discussion. If others wish to discuss it in a civil and respectful fashion, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'm done. –Dilidor (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dilidor is risking a block if he continues with what appears to be aggressive stripping of wikilinks. These removals are often reverted, and it seems that many editors disagree with his practices. One way he could address the criticism is to accept a 1RR restriction on his link removals. That is, he could agree not to restore any of his link changes if someone else reverts it. Dilidor was previously warned at ANI about his copyediting practices. At that time, User:Swarm said "" It is natural to see the conduct reported in this AN3 complaint as a violation of the previous warning. But if Dilidor would agree to the proposed 1RR on link removals, I think the edit warring complaint could be closed without other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking. I want to be clear here because there have been issues in this conflict where I had not understood details concerning terminology and expectations. For example, I had no idea that I was expected to adhere to "3RR"; indeed, I did not clearly understand what that shorthand term meant. I have already been excoriated by Andy Dingley for the fact that I did not fully understand these things, and so do not need to be told such again. But if I have clearly comprehended your proposal, I am happy to comply with it.
 * Please also clarify the timeframe of these expectations. —Dilidor (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You were first warned for edit warring, with the appropriate warning template and links to 3RR etc., in March 2017. You have been repeatedly warned since. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor's claim that they are unaware of what 3RR means is laughable. They have been warned about violating the three-reverts guideline (and linked to the guideline) on multiple occasions, and have even reported users for violating the guideline! Dilidor has a long history of edit-warring, almost always over removal of links and other MOS issues. Note especially the formal warning here which has been totally ignored. If anything the behaviour has gotten worse since then. Based on the user talk page Dilidor is coming into conflict every few weeks with other editors over the same issues, and has done zero self-reflection despite editors repeatedly explaining Wikipedia policies. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the restriction will be ''. This means they will stop doing any of the kinds of edits listed at the head of this report as diffs #1-5. The restriction will be indefinite unless it is successfully appealed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This type of behaviour can apply to any edit or revert they disagree with, not just edits involving wikilinks. A 24 hour block for edit-warring, followed by 6 months of 1RR across the board will certainly be more effective, and it's a restriction they shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding. - wolf  03:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Agreement. I'm recording here that User:Dilidor is accepting the above proposal for a 1RR restriction on unlinking: . As they said above: Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking.'' EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ineedisin reported by User:Musicfan122 (Result: Blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock of community-banned User:Krajoyn)
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:

Comments:

Disruptive editing and refusing to reach consensus in talk, also removing a whole lot referenced text in their last edits. Musicfan122 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Favonian (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:213.65.195.254 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked as a proxy)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:17, 18/01
 * 2) 21:06, 18/01
 * 3) 10:37, 19/01
 * 4) 21:45, 19/01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened this discussion section.

Comments:


 * Anon IP is misinterpreting WP:BRD and claiming that somehow two editors opposed to inclusion over three supporting inclusion is a consensus. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I never once said there was a consensus, In fact I challenge Bastun to quote me where I said that. I simply stated there was a lack of consensus for the inclusion of a sentence (there was) and so invoking WP:BRD I reverted. WP:ONUS states those who wish to make the new changes must gain a consensus if challenged. Bastun was challenged and he failed to gain a consensus and was thus reverted in compliance with wikipedia policy.213.65.195.254 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, as per 's remarks, there is consensus for inclusion. Your use of relatively obscure wiki-shortcuts also suggests you've been editing before. What usernames have you used? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IP since blocked as a zombie proxy. Case can be closed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one year as a proxy by User:Zzuuzz. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Planethunter91 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to last good version. Pending from Dispute Resolution."
 * 2)  "Change agreed on talkpage, please check: Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"
 * 3)  "Change agreed on talkpage, please check: Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 879190731 by Drbogdan (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 878598801 by Drbogdan (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also see EW behavior at Astronomy, List of potentially habitable exoplanets, as well as discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  General Ization Talk  18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the supposed DR referred to by the editor was closed without action or engagement for procedural reasons, and is not pending.  General Ization  Talk  18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Planethunter91 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to last good version. Changes add important data to the article. Better source needed."
 * 2)  "Data added is relevant"
 * 3)  "Important data added"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 879191757 by Drbogdan (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 879183331 by Rowan Forest (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also see EW behavior at Astronomy, Exoplanet, as well as discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  General Ization Talk  18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Fair Galaxy reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The previous article does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies and is inaccurate in parts."
 * 2)  "Unnecessary information lifted from tabloids.  It is NOT necessarily factual and does not relate to the work of the artist"
 * 3)  "Shortened information as the previous was gossip lifted from tabloids and not factual."
 * 4)  "Unnecessary information that has nothing to do with the artist."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Abigail Hopkins. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
 * 4)   "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Some proposed changes */ Comment"


 * Comments:

User has also attempted to use an IP to evade detection. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User has continued to edit war from a new account. SPI was opened at Sockpuppet_investigations/Fair_Galaxy RhinosF1 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Users have been blocked and page protected. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael.suede reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jorm (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Tsumikiria (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jorm (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Tsumikiria (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Added  tag to article (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* FYI, 3RR */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Biased Lead */"


 * Comments:

5RR Drive by tagging with talk page suggestions for promotional material Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just coming here to make this exact same report. Thanks, Tsumikiria! --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this article is getting POV edit traffic because the owner of the article's subject has made a canvassing call for edits on twitter.--Jorm (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I am being personally targeted by Gab on twitter now as well. So.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article made multiple calls for editor recruitment in the past 2 days and has targeted me personally as well. See . ECP protection is needed. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:146.198.193.75 reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 879289362 by Cygnis insignis (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 879254583 by William Harris (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 879253580 by William Harris (talk) this is English wikipedia"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 879253208 by Apokryltaros (talk) change a word if a word is important to you. do not restore a policy violation."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 879251738 by William Harris (talk) your edit summary does not make sense and does not justify restoring an obvious policy violation."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 879251464 by William Harris (talk) check which Wikipedia you are on. is it German? Or is it English?"
 * 7)  "/* Taxonomy */"
 * 8)  "/* Taxonomy */ "can be described as" = "is""
 * 9)  "/* Taxonomy */ text presumably copied and pasted from somewhere in all-too-common grotesque misunderstanding of what it means to write a free encyclopaedia"
 * 1)  "/* Taxonomy */"
 * 2)  "/* Taxonomy */ "can be described as" = "is""
 * 3)  "/* Taxonomy */ text presumably copied and pasted from somewhere in all-too-common grotesque misunderstanding of what it means to write a free encyclopaedia"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Not much to discuss here, with the IP at 10RR.  General Ization Talk  02:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may note that
 * User:William Harris reverted four times within half an hour. Some kind of oversight not to mention that, was it?
 * The edit war happened 14 hours ago.
 * It resulted in the creation of a stub, to replace a link to a German-language article, and the replacement of unsourced non-free text with proper encyclopaedic content.
 * The user filing this report has nothing, apparently, to do with the situation, having made no recent edits to the article nor contributed to the talk page discussion which, although laced with insults against me (eg User:Oknazevad your attitude sucks, Get the eff off your high horse, your edits are pissant little powder trips, User:Cygnis insignis I would prefer that you piss off) at least brought the necessary improvements to bear.

. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are here to discuss your edits, not those of William Harris.
 * The fact that 14 (actually less than 10) hours have elapsed since the last salvo in the edit war doesn't absolve you of responsibility for edit warring.
 * Not at all sure what your point is, especially since you played no role in the creation of that stub.
 * The fact that I am an uninvolved party is one of the reasons I am entirely qualified to file this report.


 * Anything else?  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Does William Harris get a free pass, then? Why aren't you worried about his rule breaking?
 * It makes it pointless to do anything. So an edit war happened in the past, and now everybody is happy with the article. What's your interest in stirring? Also, in fact 15 hours have passed since my last edit at 11.30 UTC on 20th. It's now 02.30 UTC on 21st. What's the point of claiming that interval is "less than 10" hours? That's just bizarre
 * I made the necessity of its creation obvious. It was a positive outcome to the situation.
 * You're obviously just looking to stir up trouble. Try improving articles instead, it's better for the encyclopaedia. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I rest my case. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:75.182.115.183 reported by User:2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:1C2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:1C (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: [link]

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

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Stemdude reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert to compromise"
 * 2)  "A mathematical identity cannot hold "in general""
 * 3)  "Reverting mathematically incorrect statement ("b^(p^q) != b^(pq)"). Actually, b^(p^q) = b^(pq) for p = 0 or q = 1 (or p = q^(1/q-1) for p,q real). Issues of style and pedagogy are secondary to mathematical accuracy"
 * 1)  "Reverting mathematically incorrect statement ("b^(p^q) != b^(pq)"). Actually, b^(p^q) = b^(pq) for p = 0 or q = 1 (or p = q^(1/q-1) for p,q real). Issues of style and pedagogy are secondary to mathematical accuracy"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Failure of associativity */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Exponentiation */"


 * Comments:

User is having civility issues, going as far as wikihounding me in a completely unrelated discussion. Multiple other editors have told him to wait for consensus to form. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't want this to be closed as "stale" just because admins skipped it over (they've answered some of the below reports promptly...).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nice4What reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been notified of violating 1 Revert per 24 hour rule on their talk page but have refused to self revert. Jim7049 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I advice any administrator who reads this to re-protect the template (it was previously protected for a week by User:MSGJ). There's been non-stop edit warring there since before New Year's Eve, while there is little enthusiasm for using the talk page. Based on edit summaries, the latest dispute looks like a clear example of WP:POINT. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice4What blocked 24 hours and template protected for two weeks. I would also have blocked Jim7049 if they hadn't self-reverted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn (result: decline)
Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Syrian Civil War

Comments:


 * Violation of the 1RR, in force for all articles related to the Syrian Civil War. He was blocked for violating the 1RR just a day ago, and returned to the familiar pattern mere hours after the block expired. He reported another user for the exact same thing just a few hours ago, so he is definitely familiar with what 1RR means. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have self reverted before this report was posted. Jim7049 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He appears to have self-reverted before I reported him, so perhaps I was a bit quick on this one. I don't know whether a report is carved in stone once it has been posted, but I hope an administrator will take this into consideration. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline to block at this time. Jim7049 wisely self-reverted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:192.180.96.67 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 2)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 3)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 4)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 1)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 2)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 1)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 2)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"
 * 1)  "/* Signifiance and roles */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Asherah. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Asherah. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Asherah. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Amicable resolution attempts were not needed, obvious WP:CB like Dedicated wife to Yahweh proud mother of Liam and lilah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

IP seems to have calmed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours. Sorry for the late response to this one. Next time, you can take things like this to WP:AIV which should get a quicker response. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:AKA Casey Rollins (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No one warned Jorm

I came before the fourth revert was performed, and at the time unaware that he had already done three revisions. [diff]

Comments:


 * While these aren't actual diff links, I suppose yes, I 3RRD, as the 3rd revert was to fix the sixth(?) revert by a now-blocked editor who was engaged in drive-by tagging edit wars. It should be noted that this page is under full protection now because it is being brigaded by outside editors and SPAs, of which OP is one.--Jorm (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't somebody have notified you when you were at your third revert? I am not super familiar with the process but it seems SOP to warn someone before the fourth revert was made. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First, dude, the fourth link there isn't a revert of the same thing, so it's out of pocket for your argument. The first three are about the same content (not the fourth).  My third revert was to fix the SIX REVERTS of the now-blocked editor. No one warned me because I didn't do anything wrong. --Jorm (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, wtf you're all "no one warned you, and I can't be bothered to have a discussion, but let's just jump to the noticeboard"? Please.--Jorm (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This will in all certainty be a WP:BOOMERANG. User:Michael.suede is a chronic warrior blocked for a month for trying to unwarrantedly insert Template:Overcoverage to undermine the article's sourced content. Both the filer and User:Ginjuice4445 inserted blatant promotional/synthetic language onto the page, with the latter using falsified refs and made WP:IDONTLIKEIT removals. Filer and the two editors are likely here today in response to the article subject's fourth canvassing call that targeted Jorm and me personally, so this report is transparently not opened in good faith. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally understand where you're coming from, but I'm reporting Jorm because of the reverts, not because of his edits on the Gab article, of which I do not approve. We disagree, but he should have the right to make those edits. Additionally, at this point I've also come to realize that Jorm didn't actually do anything wrong and I misread both the reverts and the terms of 3RRD, so I no longer believe he should be punished for anything. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The fourth edit in this edit war reverted a bona fide contribution to the article. My edits to that page are always summarily reverted by Jorm or Tsumikiria on a summary basis without explanation. I have taken this up on the talk page where my well-sourced objections to the current management of the Gab page were met by Jorm with a "cool story, bro." This followed yet another, fifth revert of another good faith contribution I made to the page earlier in the day. The objective was to keep the page as he prefers it without regard for others' contributions. Jorm knew what he was doing and should not, frankly, have needed a warning, so I support a ban. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My edits to that page are always summarily reverted by Jorm or Tsumikiria on a summary basis without explanation. What? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regulars on the page are frankly quite tired of Ginjuice's incessant sealioning and POV pushing that filled up the entire talk page. At least 7 editors, with 3 of them admins, have told them no. Per policy, blocks and bans are preventative rather than punitive, and the only editor who should be reprimanded, at the very least, would be Ginjuice. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that really has anything to do with this complaint. If you have different issues with Jorm, take that somewhere else, not here. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not a private members' club. As far as the Gab page is concerned, "regulars" have maintained a stranglehold on the page and now feel free to revert changes of alternative viewpoints - however minor or major - with total impunity. I've been attempting to introduce some balance to the article, as have others; all these attempts, however minor, get reverted by the "regulars." As long as we're on the topic, here's a sixth revert from Jorm today. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "balance" you were trying to bring is WP:FALSEBALANCE supported only by your idiosyncratic interpretation of sources. Since you're in a WP:1AM situation, you can open another RfC, escalate using dispute resolution, or just take it to WP:ANI, and finally, WP:ARBCOM, if you truly believe that people opposing you are at fault. No one is stopping you at this point. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the first person to complain about that page, just the most recent and the one willing to do the most work on the talk page to show how the article is being mismanaged. My position is set out on the talk page for anyone who cares to read it. In any case, that has nothing to do with this, which is about one of the "regulars" reverting a half-dozen or more good faith edits to the page that were adequately cited. I'm following Wikipedia's rules. Jorm isn't, which is why the article reflects Jorm's opinions and not the opinions of the three other editors who were trying to contribute to the article today and whose changes he reverted. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not super familiar with how the proceedings work, but I've done my duty; I saw something, I said something. I don't know if he needs to be punished or not, after all there have been a lot of "pro Gab" users making retaliatory edits due to Andrew Torba's social media posts. I want a balance between the anti-Gabbers and the pro-Gabbers. You're actually part of the problem because not only did you take my balanced edit too far, your description is inaccurate, as some of the content that breaks TOS (thus causing a Gab ban) is political, and users like Patrick Little have been banned from the site after they were pressured by hosting companies. This caused Tsumikiria to remove both your edit and mine. [] And it's not like you didn't undo any of his edits, you're not totally innocent in this matter. Anyways, I'm not here to argue with you, we can do that somewhere else. I made a report. People will follow up. Until then, you should probably just relax Ginjuice4445. 1) Jorm had a right to make the edits that he made, even if they're biased 2) the page is locked anyways, so it's not like your kicking and screaming is going to change anything. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 05:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Lord Roem. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: if I had noticed this report earlier I would probably have blocked for a clear violation of 3RR. It does not matter if you are reverting the same or different content, they all count and you should know that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunter160586 and likely socks reported by User:Krenair (Result: Blocked and protected)
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: On the user's talk page, see above. They haven't responded or written anything extra in their edit summaries beyond the default undo text and section titles. Comments:

My own edits are exempt. I have opened an SPI case although I suspect WP:DUCK applies here, and the 3RR policy says the limit is per-person rather than per-account. Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 19:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hunter160586 for a week and KikiMcQ indefinitely. . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.34.38 reported by User:Goulegisgay (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was asked to provide a source for this information on their talk page

Comments:

User continues to write that this actor will voice this character despite no information from any source exists for them Goulegisgay (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The filer has been blocked by another admin, but only for username. So far nobody has used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - First edit after the user comes off their 4 day block and resumes their edit warring
 * 2)  - After being reverted by an uninvolved editor the user reverts the page back to what they think is correct

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)  - Left a single issue warning to the editor after their 02:38, January 21, 2019 edit was reverted as it is the same behavior as in the past. I left a custom message urging the editor to discuss this on the article talk page

Comments:

This user has had two previous reports filed that lead first to a 24 hour block then a 4 day block. It is clear that this user is not here for consensus based editing as each time they resume their previous pattern of editing that resulted in two blocks. They never explain their edits on talk pages. To me this has gone beyond edit warring and is now disruptive editing and WP:OWN.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    23:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Bradv (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverting active whitewashing. Take it to the talk page."
 * 2)  "undid possible vandalism and whitewashing of sourced information."
 * 3)  "provided independent cites for every claim."
 * 4)  "Reverted POV whitewashing."
 * 5)  "Added citation"


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


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

That was quick. PackMecEng (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Went back to self-revert, saw that it was done. Participating in the talk. Won't edit again until we can reach an agreement.CordialGreenery (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also worth noting, every revert was not the same. I made attempts to add more citations in an effort to better source the claims. That being said, I'm not planning on doing it again. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There were two 3RR notices left, which were both removed. I took the time to post a hand-written note instead asking them to please discuss instead of revert, which they have now removed as well. These notices were each left after the third, fourth, and fifth reverts respectively. Bradv 🍁  05:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've created a talk page and attempted to discuss the future of the article with Bradv. I've yet to see anything there. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to give you some friendly advice on how to edit Wikipedia constructively - advice which you have failed to take. I have no strong opinion on the issue in question. Bradv 🍁  05:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Declining to block at this time as CordialGreenery has stepped back and promised to stop edit warring. Any further edit warring is likely to result in a block. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I've dropped a DS alert at their talk page with a personal note as this is covered by AP2 DS. Future problems are probably better dealt with at AE.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikepedediter reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Terrestrial and planetary */Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Added content"
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 1)  "Added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Seems their edits are disruptive Hhkohh (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked as they're obviously only here to vandalise. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Bonner16 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 879837271 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Take it to the Talk page and explain why you are not applying your policy consistently across all Airport pages."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 879821714 by Jeni (talk) I invited discussion on this matter on the Talk page. Why are you singling out Liverpool John Lennon Airport?"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 879682950 by Bonner16 (talk): This is not spam or promotion but standard practice. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 878194775 by Bonner16 (talk): Not spam. All airport pages reference future routes citing official sources. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Liverpool John Lennon Airport. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Reverted edits by Charlesdrakew (talk) to last version by Bonner16"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. (TW)"


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

Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Hongon reported by User:GB fan (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 879824113 by 7 qz (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 879793053 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 879785771 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 4)  "Added medicinal information of onions, along with three sources"
 * 5)  "Two sources, both coming from the United States government are adequate enough. Undid revision 879562475 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 6)  "@Zefr Outdated doesnt mean invalid, provide a source that disprove my claim or else you will be reported to administrators for stalking and harassment. Undid revision 879554003 by Zefr (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Addition about medicinal properties */ new section"


 * Comments:

Also they were blocked for personal attacks yesterday for 31 hours and immediately came back and continued to edit war. ~ GB fan 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The last comment from says  because their edits are correct.  ~ GB fan 19:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: no violation)

 * Page
 * User being reported:



The user obviously has an “Ariana Grande only” agenda, as the contribution history obviously shows. I get that we like who we like, but that doesn’t mean defy neutrality rules by continuing to remove reliably sourced information that you don’t like or changing the narrative of it when on the Talk page users are coming to a consensus that we include it because it’s widely reported. This is not about “other stuff exists” whataboutism regarding completely unrelated artist Kali Uchis. This is about the multiple allegations of Ariana Grande’s song 7 Rings. Despite notes reminding people to stop removing reliably sourced content, users such as this one continue to remove the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)

No violation. Fan4Life has not even edited that article in the last 24 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I consider yesterday being January 22, 2019, within the past 24 hours.... Anyhow, when she inevitably comes back to remove said section for the fourth time the disruption will continue. And when that happens I shall have to report once again. Trillfendi (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:LevIBortz and User:DavidMondale reported by User:Kingsif (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LevIBortz and DavidMondale

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not involved, but

Comments:

In my defense (DavidMondale), I am trying to maintain a coherent page for people to understand when they go to it. No ill will, but come on, let the facts show for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMondale (talk • contribs) 01:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I agree that both users violated 3RR and should be blocked. However, the nominator seems to have forgotten the user Frodar. With 4 reverts in less than 10 minutes, Frodar also violated 3RR and should be blocked along with the two other edit-warrers. Jeppiz (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Frodar's edit warring 02:43, 02:45, 02:45 (again), and 02:47. Four reverts in four minutes for an obvious 3RR violation. Jeppiz (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page extended-confirmed protected by User:Muboshgu until 30 January (which looks to me like a good solution). This prevents further editing by any of the people named above as deserving blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:69.65.90.61 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits"
 * 2)  "Edited Content"
 * 3)  "I only want to let it talk about the United States. Because the only place that Man in the High Castle takes place is the United States, and maybe even Germany! Good faith edits!"
 * 4)  "LOL I know but Book and Series do not differ. There are also people saying that are saying that Canada and other nations are independent! Even in the show! Trust me! Please do not re-edit this unless if I made a mistake, If so, please  leave a message on my talk page! Thanks!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 879874280 by Ubiquity (talk) It was from book. Book and show do not differ. People on YouTube say that!"
 * 6)  "Reverted Unfaithful edits"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 879872465 by Shellwood (talk) The reason why I put this up is because it is in the book! Book and show do not differ! I have seen people say things like "Canada is just Canada" and "India won independence from the United Kingdom" and stuff."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 879872465 by Shellwood (talk) The reason why I put this up is because it is in the book! Book and show do not differ! I have seen people say things like "Canada is just Canada" and "India won independence from the United Kingdom" and stuff."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Man in the High Castle (TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP's edits have been challenged by multiple editors, but he has reverted an excessive amount of times, even after a warning on his talk page (which he removed). — TAnthonyTalk 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 4 days. It appears that this IP editor may have used from time to time. He has also been edit warring since December. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Crisx284 reported by User:LTPHarry (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_television_series&diff=880001970&oldid=879994255 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_television_series&oldid=879990166 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_television_series&oldid=879887136
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

She doesn't speak English well and argues back saying she's right. She was blocked on another Wiki for edit warring as well. She also sent me a personal attack. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have Aspeger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisx284 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this user should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. A Dolphin (squeek?) 19:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Already blocked in response to a discussion at WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Xoltron reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: no violation)
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:

The reported user has just returned after 16 days and started edit warring again. Ignored our discussion on talk page and warning messages by me and another editor on their talk page. Plus he dropped a meaningless message on my talk page. And then started edit warring again. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Comment : Please note that this revert of mines was a mistake. Wario-Man legitimately corrected my mistake and i thank him for that. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation of 3RR, but there is something faintly troubling here. Suggest AN/ANI if problems persist. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's not a 3RR case but edit warring. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wario-Man is indeed editwarring and putting harrassing insertions on my talk page. He will not engage in discussion and ignores my repeated assertions that these are (a) spelling corrections as well as (b) additions based on sources already provided in the article by other editors in previous editsXoltron (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I) You just continued your edit warring even after I submitted this report. II) When did I harass you on your talk page?! Even another user has warned you for writing inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries. III) Wow... I didn't participate in discussion?! It was you who ignored my comment and didn't reply to it. 8 Jan was your last activity and you just started edit warring on 24 Jan again! IV) Not only you have done edit warring, but you posted false accusation here instead of posting relevant stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that administrators should revisit this report, because Xoltron reverted the article yet again after User:MSGJ's closure. And here, Xoltron removes a standard edit warring notice from his talk page, saying he was 'removing harrassment by User:Wario-Man', surely an overreaction. On the talk page you can see arguments about the Persian versus Arabic origins of various things; possibly the present dispute is related to that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take any action which you feel is appropriate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:BobiusPrime reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: 31 hours)
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:

Straightforward 3RR violation, against 4 editors. Subject had already been discussed on talk page. Editor was issued an edit warring user warning, their response was to revert again and post one to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Plemongello reported by User:Melcous (Result: blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

A COI warning was given as well as requests to use the talk page to request edits  and  as well as comments in edit summaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melcous (talk • contribs)
 * Blocked both this user and IP 68.169.210.168 for 24 hours for 3RR violation &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: User:Plemongello has just had their account renamed to User:BillyB1950. That editor has clarified that he is not the subject of the article (Peter Lemongello) but is just a fan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor, now named BillyB1950, has again broken the WP:3RR on The Crests, re-adding the same content which has been disputed and reverted by three other editors. Melcous (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Gutterball1219 reported by User:Moxy (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 880077753 by CharlieNgo2002 (talk) Last edit claimed to fixed grammar, vandalized information instead"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 880077256 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 880076205 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 880076064 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 880075926 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 880075825 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 880075691 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 880075582 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 880075367 by Knowledgekid87 (talk)"


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


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

Ongoing talk this editor has not engaged in
 * Comments:


 * Rebuttal:
 * Ban me, you cowards. Gutterball1219 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked Gutterball1219 and Knowledgekid87 for clear 3RR violations &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Pikermerle reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "why are you deleting sourced content that I have taken the time to write? I don't understand the hostility"
 * 2)  "well, the long standing content is based on early 20th century "academia" and was disproven by modern day researchers"
 * 3)  "Everything that I've said is sourced. You have a problem with it, you take it to the talk page"
 * 1)  "Everything that I've said is sourced. You have a problem with it, you take it to the talk page"


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


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


 * Comments:

"Brand new" account (created 2 days ago), trying to change long-standing well sourced content on numerous articles through sheer edit-warring. Even though I and others have requested him, on numerous occassions, to refer to the talk page (per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN]), he does not care at all. Looking at the evidence, in combination with the fact that he instantly removed the 3RR warning from his talk page, I think its safe to say that this account is here on a tendentious single purpose mission. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your absolute first interaction with me consisted in deleting everything that I've written, dismissing it as "historical revisionism" (despite me actually attempting to correct early twentieth-century historical revisionism with modern-day research) and attacking me for being a new user. I only deleted the "warnings" that you posted on my talk page, because you deleted those that I put on yours. I am here to complement outdated and disproven content with new, academically-backed material. Please try to be civil, and don't be of bad faith. Pikermerle (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that Pikermerle has already broken WP:3RR at Safavid dynasty family tree. Their version of the article always includes the unqualified claim that 'the Safavids were sayyids', while the prior version used more cautious language. They have now made this replacement five times, which gives them a total of four reverts. They may be able to avoid a block if they will agree to wait for consensus before making any more edits about the Safavids. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Pikermerle went on to make a further revert, even after this olive branch. I have blocked for 24 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What "further revert" and which "olive branch" are you referring to? I stopped editing these articles the moment I received a warning about the 3rd revert rule. The fact that you would block me after I stopped editing the articles and moved the discussion to the talk page is either a stupid mistake or highly ill-intentioned. Pikermerle (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User:AZSH reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  14 january, 02:40
 * 2)  15 january 01:24
 * 3)  15 january 02:19
 * 4)  15 january 03:01

Four reverts within 25 hours 10 days ago, and now :


 * 1)  25 january 01:40
 * 2)  26 january 00:19
 * 3)  26 january 01:23
 * 4)  26 january 01:30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and several other users warned AZSH in recent times :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , , etc ...

Comments:

This user edit-warred against another user some 10 days ago (see the above diffs) with 4 reverts within 25 hours, now he's edit-warring against me, with 4 reverts within 24 hours and refuses to give a legit explanation for his removal of sourced content. Moreover, he told me that "they don't need me" for the thread, thus refusing to engage in a constructive discussion :. I would welcome the eye of an admin in order to stop the disruption caused by the reported editor. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Indygirl15 reported by User:-sche (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: the user's first instatement of their version / "she" pronouns (in a bio of a person who uses "they" pronouns)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)  (continued edit warring even after being warned on their talk page by me and by another user)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned by me and by another user

Comments:

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE (and DIDNTHEARTHAT)? -sche (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment here is a clear indication that the editor intends to continue with these edits, as they have. Meters (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and warned of discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User: 1Goldberg2 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Bold edit and WP:BLP violation in which ed changed Greta Thunberg from saying she's a "climate activist" to a "climate prostitute"
 * 1st re-revert to restore "prositute"
 * 2nd re-revert to restore "prositute"
 * 3nd re-revert to restore "prositute"
 * 4th re-revert to restore "prositute"
 * 5th re-revert to restore "prositute"
 * Other vandalism, not 3RR shortly after the last diff above user changed first sentence of the lead at global warming to "Global warming is fake..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Due to the vandalism and BLP vio I did not bother issuing a 3RR notice before filing this report. I did, however, leave a DS alert about Climate change on the user's talk page. I don't think they have any contribs after I left the DS notice. DONTBITE is great when inexperienced users make oopsies but this case presents abundant objective evidence of bad faith, so I skipped the handholding. After posting the DS alert, this user added an inflammatory comment in this thread (see below, or if it later disappears see DIFF here). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not mistake. I politically attacked this disgusting left for her lies. And there is no global warming--1Goldberg2 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see that as anything but a severe BLP violation and simple vandalism. Blocked until they can return to rationality. Kuru   (talk)  13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Damonshady reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Blocked per SPI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Check the talk page"
 * 2)  "What are you talking about?? And why are you reverting to a version full of typos and outdated information? Nothing new was added so no need for sources!"
 * 3)  "Previous revert was disrespectful to people who spent time making good faith, productive edits. No reason to revert at all!"
 * 4)  "Wording"
 * 5)  "Repositioning // This section still need some work done in order to achieve a neutral point of view"
 * 6)  "/* Controversies */ can someone more experienced fix this section? It gives to much weight to one side and doesn’t have sources"
 * 7)  "/* Controversies */ fixed typo"
 * 1)  "/* Controversies */ fixed typo"


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


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


 * Comments:

Invloved in large dispute with User:Coltsfan - has been reported to SPI by them. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I refuse any involvement in sockpuppetry and I’m sorry if I violated any rule. I made good faith, productive edits and this guy is reverting me for no reason! Can someone be reasonable and check my contributions? I have no intention at all to disrupt Wikipedia. I didn’t add any new information that requires a source. I even tried to get reasonings from him but nevertheless, I’m being accused of using multiple accounts? I’m not even pov pushing, I don’t have any agenda! Just tried to contribute to WP but it seems I’m not welcomed here. Actually I don’t even care about being blocked, I just ask you please to check my edits and decide for yourself if they’re disruptive. --Damonshady (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * at SPI as a sock. GABgab 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:103.204.87.39 reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restore last good, no BLP vio"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 880230474 by DBigXray (talk) notable event relevant to investigation details"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 880207862 by Kautilya3 (talk) I hear you are tag teaming and has no prior history here but WP:BRD.."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 880034627 by DBigXray (talk) no consensus for this"
 * 5)  "remove undue information per talk page, a CBI statement needs no separate section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Undue weightage to the accusations and removal of the subjects statement */ re"


 * Comments:

This IP user is showing WP:OWNERSHIP issues and repeatedly reverting to his preferred version of the article. He has thrice removed reliably sourced content citing frivolous reasons and has twice restored WP:BLP violations (poorly sourced statements attributed to a living person)  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This IP is clearly a sock of somebody or other, not to mention the clear WP:personal attack in the diff 3. What do they mean by "I hear". Hear from whom? They have no prior interaction with me. (By the way, the subject, Jagdish Tytler, is in the news. Plenty of people with "no prior history" would be watching this page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also notice that the IP has requested full protection of the page, repeating the same ridiculous WP:aspersions naming me, and then did a revert: . A clear effort to game the system. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also It would be interesting to know how this IP and Qualitist reached this page in the first place, immediately after I edited it, and only to revert my edits. (diff, diff, diff)-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP 103.204.87.39, who has certainly made a lot of reverts, has opened a thread at WP:BLPN that may be of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "changes made ignoring or extrapolating the sources; WP:OR and WP:DISRUPT"
 * 2)  "non constructive changes that don't agree with the sources or don't have any"
 * 1)  "non constructive changes that don't agree with the sources or don't have any"


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


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


 * Comments:

As per my report a moment ago - this is the other user invloved. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Three changes were made by me (only two being me reverting someone, no 3RR here) and then things were taken to the talk page. You even put in the diffs there that were about spacing in the paragraphs, not changes in the content. That's hardly a EW, under any light. Coltsfan (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to discuss but I've added information on yourself to allow the full case to be seen. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's not balanced having two pics saying "fuck", "kill" nato, atleast one pro and one con if a of the photos is gonna be up."
 * 2)  "It's no idea to threaten by writing on my talk page, you are changing your story, first you say a majority are against then you say some are, based on what? Nothing, no sources, just cause you feel that Nato isn't good for Macedonia doesn't mean grafiti is acceptable."
 * 3)  "Where are the sources that you say are true, that the majority are anti-Nato. The Wiki text says otherwise."
 * 4)  "No they are not, it says a bit further up that "NATO membership in general is supported by 85.2% of the population." This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral."
 * 5)  "Not relevant, graffiti from some random person(s) shouldn't take up the articles points."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Pics in article */Cmt"


 * Comments:
 * Made another revert . Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SureshK 67 reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reported editor reverted edits by me, User:Teishin, and User:HistoryofIran without consensus or providing valid edit summaries or comments on talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I added references for my edits but they are continuously being removed by User:Teishin, User:HistoryofIran, User:Wario-Man. Then I presented my side of argument in talk page and reverted section to earlier version before dispute until consensus is reached but it is being reverted too with edits of User:Teishin which were added after the dispute began.SureshK 67 (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You have violated 3RR rule and involved in edit warring. 2) You just restored older revision when you saw three other editors didn't agree with you and you failed to push your desired changes. And you did it after breaking 3RR and reverting other editors' edits. 3) Your edits were problematic. Even the part you call the sourced one; was just your personal opinion + citing a random book that did not support it. You just don't like Michael Witzel and Christopher I. Beckwith's opinions and tried to discredit them by using odd wording and adding your very own POV. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no instances of the word saka denoting a race in Pali Canon. The two authors are just publishing their own opinion pieces without providing any evidences from Buddhist scriptures themselves. You are presenting them as facts on the article. It is you who are being biased. The source I added clarifies that buddha's clan were never called saka in any of the buddhist scriptures.SureshK 67 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps useful to this discussion is this discussion on the same topic, on another page, that went into arbitration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity The first edit of user:SureshK 67 I changed was because the syntax of the sentence was so faulty as to have unclear meaning. I changed the sense of the sentence back to what it was previously. I was never alerted on the Talk page that there was an issue going on with this topic and that I was involved in it. Teishin (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – 36 hours. The same user made a long series of reverts in early January at Mount Kailash while never using the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jimka1 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 880325530 by SovalValtos (talk) )As before, none of you bother to discuss this in the talk page. Please take a time just for once to refer to Garretka (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sofia_Airport"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 880262024 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Not really cool by threatening user blockage. You had previously said to discuss this in the talk page and none is being involved in this endless and pointless spam theory. Go along and block, at least the other users are aware of this bizarre meddling."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 880120104 by Charlesdrakew (talk) In the talk page, a professional pilot has given both yourself and your lad suggestions but you passively chose to ignore. Instead of passively undoing articles, give us examples. References have been borrowed from other nearby airports."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Three reverts today and many more in previous days including four on one day. Persistent spammer and original researcher. Charles (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also appears to be editing under Special:Contributions/95.111.103.6. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. Worth keeping an eye on, because disruptive edits may continue when the block expires. Has been editing since 2007 but has never posted on an article talk page. Also blocked the IP for 3 months. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a footnote to a necessary block, I'd observe that Sofia Airport has been a trouble spot for edit warring. It was fully protected 8 times in 2018. It might be helpful if editors would open discussion at WT:AIRPORTS when they find themselves repeatedly in disagreement on the airport's own talk page. The WP:AIRPORTS project has a few guidelines but I notice lots of repeated disputes. For example, about upcoming flight schedules that have been announced but haven't yet started. So, perhaps the WikiProject could add some more guidelines. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:39.33.42.140 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  15:27, 25 January
 * 2)   00:50, 28 January

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

Comments:

Article was put under ECP and 1RR by EdJohnston because of edit warring by DBigXray. This is a clear violation of that 1RR as disruptive revert (by adding misleading edit summaries) concerned same thing at least 2 times under 55 hours. One can clearly see that DBigXray is removing content what he falsely claims to be a copyright violation when the content in question was properly attributed to Ministry of Law and Justice of India and is freely available. He is removing more than what he claims as copyright violation which speaks of the recklessness. He has been also misrepresenting the references per discussion on talk page. 39.33.42.140 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall putting this article under a WP:1RR restriction. Please link to any evidence of this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP probably mistaken you with El C who put this article under 1RR restriction and the page notice is also clear about it. FWIW, you had warned DBigXray earlier for violating the 1RR back in July, over this same article when he was edit warring by falsely claiming edits as "vandalism". This time he is falsely claiming them to be copyright violation to justify edit warring.  Mehra j Mir  (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston with the replies above it should be pretty obvious that we are dealing here with an elaborate sock/meat farm, who seem to be passing notes off-wiki and even then they are botching up what they should say and what they should not. Also I note that no one is explaining how this is a 1RR violation. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, but clearly there has been no violation of 1RR as there was more than 48 hours between those two reverts. Please continue to discuss and do not replace the disputed material until there is consensus on the talk page. If protection is needed, please use WP:RFPP &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think WP:GAMING clarifies how this was a 1RR violation. After being reverted you have to get consensus especially when your edits are problematic but that is not what DBigXray. He is just gaming 1RR to retain his problematic version. DBigXray is removing more content than what he falsely claims to be a copyright violation. He is misrepresenting references yet claiming the opposite on talk page. Also see the personal attacks he has made here. Do you really call this a content dispute? For now I hope Diannaa can clarify if there are concerns with copyright violations in the recent edits. 39.33.43.213 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Properly attributed quotations are not a violation of the copyright policy. Excessive use of quotations can be a violation of the Non-free content guideline. Content must unquestionalby be a violation of the non-fre content guideline before it becomes an exemption to the edit warring rule. See WP:3RRNO for more details. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The question is if the deleted content in question really violates copyvio or violates WP:NFCC? The content is properly attributed to Ministry of Law and Justice of India and is freely available. 39.33.43.213 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Properly attributed quotations are not a violation of the copyright policy. What constitutes a violation of the non-free content guideline is a judgement call. It is recommended at WP:3RRNO that a discussion should take place on the article talk page to establish what counts as an exemption. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is something DBigXray has not been understanding despite being told by multiple editors. 39.33.43.213 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Arnoboro reported by User:76.183.136.144 (Result: Article 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:

The user has made substantial changes to various Airport articles, by removing the formatting and information of the Airport articles that a layman would consider useful information. I made a objection to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in particular. He has provided some guidelines in edit summaries such as WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE which I disagree with and would be more than happy to make a case against. I have asked the user multiple times in edit summaries to discuss changes in the article's talk page to resolve any kind of dispute. We have unfortunately engaged in an edit war and the user has seemingly refused to take me up on my offer and has decided to revert instead. I think a third party to resolve this dispute is essential. I mean no harm and do not in any way mean to be hostile, I would just like this to be resolved in a positive manner. If any admin feels we both need to be blocked, I will accept that. 76.183.136.144 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite what policies have been violated in my edits. Arnoboro (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Article protected for 3 days. Please discuss on talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Flickotown reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked for 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "User:Philip Cross again respectfully disagree. it is stronger than assertion, we can directly deduce this. Explained on the talk page"
 * 2)  "User:Philip Cross respectfully disagree. it supports the pro-kremlin tag and is at the heart of the controversy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 880685094 by Rafe87 (talk) there has already been extensive discussion on this on the talk page and in the edit summaries. take this to the talk page first"
 * 4)  "User:Philip Cross i disagree with the non-contentious part. Many writers like Khalek have their political orientation/labels highlighted in a prominent place in the article. No reason why an exception should be made here. See talk page for more on this."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Per Discretionary Sanctions on all matters pertaining to the Syrian Civil War, which Khalek has written about, Flickotown is in blatant violation of WP:1RR. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This hysterically malformed edit warring complaint is a gross and despicable attempt at battlegrounding, especially as I have had no prior interaction with this particular user before. There is no edit warring User:Philip Cross and I are basically in agreement with the changes (which explains why there is none of the back-and-forth undoing of revert pattern that you see in a legitimate case of edit warring) and an edit similar to the one which User:Rafe87 made was almost instantaneously reverted by another user, thus proving the validity of my edit summary that there had already been extensive discussion on the material in question on the talk page and in the edit summaries. The discretionary sanctions argument would not apply either as neither the Khalek article nor any of my contributions to it has had anything to do with the Syrian Civil War; I would have adhered to them had I known that they applied. Administrators should note that there was no attempt by this user to resolve the so-called dispute first and also be aware that this user is wikihounding some of my edits. Flickotown (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Typical WP:WIKILAWYERING response: in the case of the discretionary sanctions, it matters not the purpose of your reverts. You clearly crossed the line. And citing this edit (the edit summary of which is typically used by IP vandals), reverted by Huggle, does not prove your claim that there was "extensive discussion" on Khalek's talk page. A brief examination of the talk page history reveals there have only been substantial edits made there today, mostly involving yourself. No one is going to be fooled by the Trump-like claim you made.
 * As to Xi Jinping, which is on my watchlist, my edit there actually incorporated the reference you added. Yet another typical distortion in a vain display of WP:NOTTHEM. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 00:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Nevertheless, you have made a significant number of reverts over the last 24 hours - apart from the four mentioned above, there are further ones at 19:18, 17:22 and also at 21:32 yesterday. I can't see that any of them are covered by WP:3RRNO, either. Not to mention that this is an account with 84 edits that appears not to be a new editor. As far as I can see, there is no reason not to apply a 3RR block here. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

There is also this gem. I read Chinese, and all the user quoted was saying was that they lamented a lack of Chinese media sources to gauge the response of the Chinese public. Idiotically using Google Translate to distort it as "ethnonationalism" ( and there is no evidence the user even is of Chinese descent; anyone can concoct a username in any language ) indicates the only user in that instance with a WP:NOTHERE mentality is. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User: 76.183.136.144 (Result: See later report)
This user keeps reverting the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport page back to how he thinks it should be. A while back, I cleaned up and streamlined sections of the page (particularly the Terminal section) to remove excessive information, some of which violates policies such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc. However, this user came back a month later and reverted it back because he claims I did not have “consensus” to make the changes. However, no one is objecting but him. I have done similar things to other airport articles and have had little issue. The airport pages are often cluttered with excessive information put in by aviation enthusiasts and some of it could be condensed and summarized. He has yet to demonstrate how my edits violate anything. Please deal with him. Arnoboro (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You should report that to WP:ANI instead of here. - I Need Support - :3 00:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Arnoboro (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:14.231.21.4 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 880799416 by Hhkohh (talk). What is the reason for the revert? Please put a note in your talk page before you revert or it would lead to EW"
 * 2)  "Redoing edits excepted for contested edit change from Hhkohh."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 879744925 by Iancash81 (talk) Vietnam national under-22 football team"
 * 4)  "/* Sponsorship */ Deleting oversourced and unsourced subjects."
 * 5)  "/* Honours */ See Competitive Records."
 * 6)  "/* Previous squads */ 2017 SEA games if for Vietnam national under-22 football team"
 * 7)  "Collapsing table to make page navigating comfortably."
 * 8)  "Other friendly tournaments absent."
 * 9)  "Minor edit."
 * 10)  "Standardizing infobox to the Vietnam national football team page."
 * 11)  "Add badge."
 * 12)  "Info not related to page's content."
 * 13)  "Rewriting the "History" template to a more organized form."
 * 14)  "Over-sourcing and extra sources."
 * 1)  "Over-sourcing and extra sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda Hhkohh (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: IP has been blocked one week per the SPI complaint; I have semiprotected the article for three months due to the pattern of socking. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:Horizons 1 (Result: Full protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_Jackson_High_School_(Bull_Run,_Virginia)&diff=prev&oldid=879282875 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_Jackson_High_School_(Bull_Run,_Virginia)&diff=prev&oldid=880668094 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_Jackson_High_School_(Bull_Run,_Virginia)&diff=prev&oldid=880713606
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:
 * Sorry, this is a big pile of spoiled hummus.  Others have stepped in and edited the article along the lines I favored, and if you look to the talk pages, the reporter has not engaged in substantive discussion. Neither the reporter nor I have crossed 3rr. This should be closed, as the article appears to now be stable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for three days. There seem to be multiple edit wars brewing on this page and little discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a substantial amount of OWN on that article by students over the years. It's been my experience on school articles that it's hard to break that without exceptional diligence and I haven't had the time or energy to be diligent enough. Thanks for the help. Glad to see all the familiar names in the edit history today. Thanks. I wasn't aware of the new player and apparently spoke too soon above. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

SMU School of Law
I’m sorry,user: Manderiko kept on reverting back the contents in SMU School of Law including advertisement and overly detailed tags from user:Drmies.

I’m not sure if user: Manderiko have any interest in that page since he seems to be overly involved in it and other Law and Law school related pages. Applepineapple (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: )
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:

The same user was reported for edit warring on the same page less than a week ago,. They conveniently space out their reverts through the course of several days to avoid violating 3RR directly. In my opinion that is WP:GAMING the system and should result in a block. They are constantly pushing fan agenda on the 7 Rings article and removing the reliably sourced criticism people add,. Regards-- N Ø  16:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The report for edit warrring last week is irrelevant as it was decided that there was no violation. I don't "conveniently space out" my reverts, that's just when I happen to edit, and I'm not WP:GAMING the system. At no point was there any attempt to resolve the dispute that I was aware of, I was told to take my dispute over the plagiarism accusations to the talk page and I did, but that wasn't the case with the dispute over the article from The Atlantic. I'm not trying to be disruptive or push a "fan agenda", I just genuinely thought that having an entire section for the plagiarism accusations when there's not been any legal action taken is excessive and isn't being neutral, and I honestly think that the article from The Atlantic shouldn't be included as it's a takedown not a review and therefore including it is being negative towards Ariana rather than neutral. I backed down over the plagiarism accusations and I plan to back down on this, I'll even take a break from editing the page if necessary to avoid a block. Fan4Life (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GAMING of the system does not necessarily need to be intentional. Waiting two days and removing a source which you were told not to remove again, and that too twice in succession is exactly that. It's not co-operative and is disruptive. Not to mention you've also been edit warring on other Grande articles here and here, and have also added an unsourced writing credit for "NASA" which does not appear on iTunes and have still refused to remove it: . You're a textbook definition edit warrior and do it most of the times to push fancruft and I see no reason you should be let off without at least a formal warning or short block.-- N Ø  07:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not being disruptive. The writing credit on NASA is sourced, Joan Grande is a reliable source. Don't make false accusations against me. Fan4Life (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I literally linked the diff so it’s not a “false” accusation. Obviously a singer’s mother and best friend’s twitter accounts are not reliable sources for a writing credit which doesn’t actually show up on iTunes. Besides, this is about your edit warring which you have done on multiple Grande articles, including one more recent instance of several consecutive reverts at Sweetener World Tour which I haven’t linked here. Stop trying to make a strawman argument and save face.— N Ø  20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you linked to proves nothing. Saying that Joan and Victoria aren't reliable sources is ridiculous, you're suggesting that they're lying, but that's not even relevant to this incident and neither are the things you're bringing up from my editing history. You are making false accusations as you have made baseless claims against me. Fan4Life (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinkopperudandersen reported by User:James343e (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: The user Martinkopperudandersen was including non-reliable sources to put the height of Cristiano Ronaldo he wanted, ignoring Real Madrid's official listing, which is where Cristiano was actually measured. I created a section in the talk page, to bring him the opportunity to explain his changes. Yet, he kept editing without discussing in the talk page. Furthermore, he broke the three-revert rule and made 4 changes in the page within less than 24 hours. James343e (talk) 3:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I count 3 reverts in 24 hours, but they are risking a block for edit warring, and they have been blocked before for that kind of stuff. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. User:Martinkopperudandersen may be blocked if they revert again. As of this moment they still haven't gone past three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Uwulingard reported by User:Crowsus (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

I'm not sure if this is even the correct place for this because it's purely vandalism rather than a content dispute, so apologies if it's wrong. The user is referring to a football match played elsewhere (Emirates Stadium) and has added the same nonsense five times. Please consider block or protection. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just vandalism. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Skylax30 reported by User:Cinadon36 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

discussion in the talk page:


 * Comments:

Skylax30 has been too eager to insert to the text the word "Macedonia" next to "Stagira", the place Aristotle was born. There is a huge discussion in the Talk Page of the article, (permalink) where various users have contributed their opinion, consensus has not yet been reached but Skylax30 is insisting to add his choice of words. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC) PS:Worth mentioning that in the Talk Page, he keeps commenting on me, , despite other users asked him to stop. (latest:)Cinadon36 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that user Cinadon36, influenced by the cyrrebt political affairs in Greece, decided to erase "Macedonia" from articles. Today I added in the article half a dozen of academic publications about Aristotle, mentioning Macedonia after Stagira, to inform their readers where Stagira is (are). Toponym "Chalkidiki" is also used, but is unknown to most WP readers. Cinadon36's contribution to the discussion is what we call "the ball out of the field". He is insisting on the historicity of "Macedonia" as a political entity in Aristotle's time, which is irrelevant. Actually, HE is warring.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Skylax30 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Aristotle without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Skylax30 has already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning EdJohnston. How about my previous request that you pass to another admin cases concerning me? --Skylax30 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where was this request made? EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Bradbm893 reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* See also */"
 * 5)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* References */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 3)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not using edit summary. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Let's talk */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Woodfield Mall. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unsourced content */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Unsourced content */ #Anchors"


 * Comments:

Refusal to discuss on article talk page or user talk page, despite multiple requests. Does not use edit summaries, and rarely provides sources for additions. Bradv 🍁  02:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you --user is blocked for 60 hours for the most obvious of reasons, which any admin here would block for: disruptive edits, possibly promotional editing, overlinking, refusal to communicate. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:203.63.255.208 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 881241683 by Greyjoy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 881239081 by BilCat (talk)"
 * 3)  "STOP undoing the edit, either debate the source, or leave it be."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 881230719 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 5)  "Added missing latewar "X" mineshell."

User deleted warning
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I provided a source, you sped. -ThatZenoGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.255.208 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This report is for edit warring, not posting unsourced information.  Grey joy talk 10:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe infract the people who are undoing a SOURCED edit? Hmmmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.255.208 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, the source/unsourced side of this is irrelevant to this report. No one else broke the 3RR.  Grey joy talk 11:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously don't care man, especially about this gestapo crap, seen enough of it on the internet already. Got a problem with my edit? Debate it, prove it wrong, or leave it be. Why the fuck do you let people just remove crap from pages then proclaim 'edit warring' when someone tries correcting it with good intentions?
 * On one hand this is a clear violation of 3RR. On the other hand I would be interested to know why this content is being reverted (6 times) without even an explanatory edit summary. your input please &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Alexander.angelov04 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Qualified teams */"
 * 2)  "/* Qualified teams */"
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * Revert after filling
 * 1)
 * 1)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated disruptive editing after final warning Hhkohh (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe WP:NOTHERE Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Alexander.angelov04 is warned they may be blocked if they edit again at 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. So far neither party in this dispute has used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:BF93 reported by User:Welltraveled (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signature_Bank&oldid=880999401
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signature_Bank&oldid=881018962
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signature_Bank&oldid=881059601

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BF93 [diff]

Comments:

User continues to undo edits without explanation or cause, even after multiple warnings. Welltraveled (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC) – — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welltraveled (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnsen1989 reported by User:MrX (Result: indefinitely blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 881421688 by 94rain (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 881421614 by 94rain (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 881421539 by MrX (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 881421378 by Objective3000 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 881421188 by 94rain (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 881420758 by 94rain (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 881420461 by 94rain (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 881420356 by 94rain (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user is an obvious sock of. They should both be blocked. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is based on the fact that inserted identical, very specific, content in the same article seven minutes after I reverted Maksuhei last edit (they were also edit warring).- MrX 🖋 13:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Crosswiki spam, the external link (.qihua\.host)has been added to zh:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.-- 94rain  Talk 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Maksuhei and Johnsen1989 are both blocked indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bishonen.- MrX 🖋 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but looks like it'll need page protection. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page for three days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Galobtter. - MrX 🖋 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:82.53.120.78 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 881475000 by IanDBeacon (talk) You can offend or block me here, but i' will see you in face of judge in my town, be sure."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 881473954 by IanDBeacon (talk) You'll be denounced too.I'll name if Wikipedia allows it, Wikipedia too."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 881472817 by Ermenrich (talk) Rv version with several mistakes."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 881470445 by Thomas.W (talk) In face of judge you'll change your arrogance.tomorroew i'll be in carabinieri HQ to denounce."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 881469300 by Thomas.W (talk) Rv full of mistakes.He doesn't care about it."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 881444217 by Thomas.W (talk) Right data for The Netherlands."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of European countries by average wage. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He has also made legal threats towards other editors as well. There is a discussion on WP:ANI about this too. He is possibly a Sock Puppet of Benniejets as well. IanDBeacon (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for making legal threats; if anyone wishes to investigate the sockpuppetry further and issue a longer block, they should feel free to do so without consulting me. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Colonies Chris reported by User:S.A. Julio (Result: Two editors warned)
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)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This edit war began with an 18 January simplification of references via AWB. Other than a brief discussion here (with reply by here), no discussion has taken place (and none involving ). I asked both these longtime users to stop the edit war and discuss, but the reverting has now continued. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my edit summaries, I have repeatedly asked TheRamblingMan to bring his objections to some suitable forum, but he neither states his objections nor discusses them. I explained my changes in some detail on the talk page of PeeJay2K3 (here), who did not respond further, so I presume he at least found my explanation acceptable. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet you continued edit warring against consensus, even after being warned by this independent party? How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither editor comes out of this well I'm afraid. 12 reverts each? And over such a trivial issue too. This may merit an entry in the infamous WP:LAME gallery. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That much is true, but only one editor was editing against consensus, and only one editor continued to edit thus after the friendly warning from S. A. Julio. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is still no resolution to this because TheRamblingMan refuses to discuss the issues which appear to concern him so much. He says my edits are 'against consensus' but the only objector is himself. My changes to that article include well over 100 separate gnoming edits - does he object to all of them? If not, which ones,  and why? I fully agree that this dispute needs to be solved by discussion - I've said that over and over again - but it takes two to have a discussion.  Colonies Chris (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've lost count of the number of times I've told you that if consensus is against your edits, then you should move on. Yet you refuse to do so and continue to implement your semi-automated edits at will, and in this case, numerous times despite being told to leave the consensus-based version in place, worse in fact, once again today after being told to stop edit-warring.  Now it's come to this, hopefully you will learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not a single word actually identifying, let alone discussing, the underlying issues. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you continue to edit against consensus, imposing your own preferred style, despite being warned not to do so. You must stop edit warring, and revert your most recent edit warring edit.  You were asked to stop by an independent editor.  Please stop repeating the mistake.  Incidentally,, this is also a contender for lame edit war trophy, and has been going on on the same article a while longer!  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point out where this consensus was set, if it's not too much trouble, instead of issuing orders. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was reviewed in that form as a GA, and has had multiple editors restoring the consensus. I'm sure you already are aware that consensus isn't always set by someone writing it in stone.  And no, I'm not "issuing orders", I'm just stating that the other user has continually edit-warred to get his preferred version, even after being told to stop by a third party.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This statement about "multiple editors restoring the consensus" is just not true. Only one other editor has raised any issues, and as I mentioned above, my explanation appears to have satisfied his concerns (explanation link here, again). The Rambling Man is the only objector, and he keeps avoiding any discussion of the reasons for his objection. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As requested, and as I have already noted above, I have noted edited the article once I was asked to desist, unlike Colonies Chris who continued to edit war to get his preferred version in place. As also noted, Colonies Chris did not have any consensus at all and was reverted by at least two editors. In fact, if you go back over the history of the article, you'll see this isn't the first time Colonies Chris has engaged in edit warring on this specific article. I am walking away from it now, as it appears some others are looking for consensus from some other place, but do note that there is no consensus for the version that Colonies Chris continued to edit war even after being asked to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Despite my repeated requests, TRM has at no point explained what his objections are to my changes. The claim that "at least two editors have reverted" is intentionally misleading. In fact it is exactly two, one of them (repeatedly) himself, the other PeeJay2K3 who appears to have accepted my changes, as noted above. Without any explanation of TRM's objection, this is not discussion, it is bullying. Far from punishing me for edit warning, (which I accept this was), I would like the admins to prohibit TRM from continuing this bizarre personal vendetta against me; he should only revert when he's prepared to have an open discussion about his objections. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not edit warring any longer, are you? I won’t touch your edits again but you need to learn they aren’t welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Colonies Chris and User:The Rambling Man are warned. Each one could be blocked if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, the result should also include the restoration of the status quo before the edit warring... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

User:146.115.179.68 reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "RV to bring back to NPOV and stating facts that are cited"
 * 2)  "just-the-facts"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 881492421 by Bradv (talk) user is reverting NPOV edits and this contains just-the-facts"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 881480998 by Black Kite (talk) Edit for NPOV and contains just-the-facts"
 * 5)  "They have been suspected of terrorism & associated with it per the FBI docs sourced and detailed in a section lower"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * It's a static IP, edit warred for 7 hours today (and last night) and has been making similar edits to the article since November. Doug Weller  talk 10:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Itspokenmonkey reported by User:Landroving Linguist (Result: Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Technically, there is not yet a 3RR violation, but the rules of why his edits are disruptive have been explained to the user, and he refuses to take part in the discussion beyond insisting that he is "fixing" the article to the "correct" information in the edit summaries. He also insults other users as "downies", "monkeys" and "donkeys" in the edit summaries, even after exhortations to remain civil. Even his choice of a user name seems to be intended to insult the other users.

It appears that the user first made his edits on this page with an IP-address, see the following diffs:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

There was only a short overlap between this range of IP addresses and the first use of the proper user name, so this is probably not a valid case of a sockpuppet. This is clearly the same user, judging from his choice of insults in the edit summary.

Two more edits from a different range of IP addresses may also go back to the same user:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Finally, at the end of December was also active on the page Eritrea, where he apparently also took on a real username,, which was only used once for this purpose, pursuing the same agenda as on Languages of Ethiopia. If this was really the same user, this probably constitutes a case of sockpuppetry. Landroving Linguist (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

After being informed of this report, the user now for the first time engaged on the talk page, but only by repeating his usual insults, without addressing the points brought up by other editors: Otherwise, he continues in his ongoing reverting just outside the 3RR parameters. Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)


 * Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1015:B15C:AC85:EDE1:63E0:E149:C13A reported by User:Sandy14156 (Result: Blocked)

 * Pages: and
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 881514328 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 881514207 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 881513933 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 881513864 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 881513805 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 881513733 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 881513649 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 881513607 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 881513559 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 881513503 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 881513431 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 881513370 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 881513332 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 881513256 by Mosrod (talk) Better lock down this page."
 * 15)  "Undid revision 881513199 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 881513104 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 881512798 by Mosrod (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 881512759 by Mosrod (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

This IP keeps constantly reverting edits on Jefferson Davis and Stephen Breyer.  Sandy 141  56  :)  02:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days for vandalism by User:Alexf. Both pages have been semiprotected one week by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Khalid M Arif reported by User:Saqib (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The date of birth of Shahid Ahmad Khattak is 28th March 1990. His father was in PAKISTAN Army and now retired. he belongs to karak his village name is FAQEER KHEL KORONA. they are settled in Peshawar. These changes are made by Khalid Mahmood Arif khattak from Khada Banda Karak."
 * 2)  "Shahid khattak Date of birth is 28th March 1990. He belongs to karak his village name is FAQEER KHEL KORONA. They are settled in Peshawar. his father was in PAKISTAN Army and now retired."
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "Shahid khattak Date of birth is 28th March 1990. He belongs to karak his village name is FAQEER KHEL KORONA. They are settled in Peshawar. his father was in PAKISTAN Army and now retired."
 * 2)  "/* References */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Shahid Ahmad. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This SPA is adding OR to a BLP and when I reverted him, he started abusing me on my talk page Saqib (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 16:46, 3 February 2019 Ad Orientem (talk | contribs) blocked Khalid M Arif (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite(account creation blocked) (Disruptive editingincluding gross personal attacks.) Jannik Schwaß (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RTG reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * I have been getting put through the stocks at VPP and ANI since yesterday. I proposed protection from closure debate, for WP:RD. I suggested that propriety should not be discussed in situ (on the same page). War ensued. My proposal has been destroyed and I have been experiencing a continuous and outnumbered attack since. All I did was propose the VPP and respond to the comments. Closure templates were applied within 90 minutes and a rouge attack began which I approached with good faith. Once I felt completely obstructed, I asked for help of an administrator. The rouge attack continued and increased greatly on ANI where it spilled out from. I breached no civility. I have not threatened the site. I reverted edits which are altering the nature of my talk page contributions. It is obvious why there is some urgency to control your talk page comments. I am well aware of the rules. This has been allowed to go on at ANI for hours. I made my fourth revert because it is directly about controlling my own statements. I've asked for help. ~ R.T.G 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This situation has spun out of control, and this is a clear edit warring violation on two pages, and a clear 3RR violation on one. I've blocked for 24 hours.  This needs to get reeled back in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:NumberOneKillerFan reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Family and personal life */Someone doesn't know what they're talking about and keeps putting false information in the article. I removed it because I'm the only one around here, apparently who doesn't have shit for brains."
 * 2)  "/* Family and personal life */Removed lies and false information for the fifth time."
 * 3)  "/* Family and personal life */Someone doesn't have anything better to do than to post false information about Jerry Lee Lewis and I removed this misinformation for the fourth time and I will continue to do so as this was my only reason for signing up."
 * 4)  "/* Family and personal life */Removed false, slanderous information."
 * 5)  "/* Family and personal life */Removed false information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jerry Lee Lewis. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jerry Lee Lewis. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * . Bishonen &#124; talk 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:180.191.238.121 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Rangeblocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Politics */"
 * 2)  "/* Politics */"
 * 3)  "/* Science and technology */"
 * 4)  "/* Politics */"
 * 5)  "/* Photography */"
 * 6)  "/* Politics */"
 * 7)  "/* Politics */"
 * 8)  "/* Photography */"
 * 9)  "/* Clergy */"
 * 1)  "/* Clergy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

We've been trying to talk to this IP for days but no luck Moxy (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's been no attempt by this user to respond to the other editors who have been cleaning up his edits and trying to communicate on his talk page. Some of his edits are POV, others are unsourced, while still others are often bizarre. There may be a language barrier -- I've told him repeatedly that Betty White is not Canadian but he kept inserting the name in a list of Danish Canadians. There are other examples as well. As he doesn't communicate, it's impossible to tell if it's a competence issue or deliberate disruption. Some edits appear straight vandalism.  freshacconci  (✉) 01:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still reverting adding factually incorrect items. Can we get someone with some Gusto to step in please.--Moxy (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the difficulties here is that this user appears to have been editing from various IPs; some other examples are and ; some go back a couple of months at least.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup IP has caused some problems all over... so far I have four different IP I'll review.--Moxy (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 180.191.238.0/24 for a month.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good block, Ponyo. Their mix of disruptive, outright vandalistic, and occasional good edits makes for quite a timesink for other editors. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"
 * 2)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"
 * 3)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"
 * 4)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"
 * 5)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"
 * 1)  "/* Further immigration, expansion, and industrialization */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* February 2019 */ WP:Not here


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


 * Comments:

Editors have bern trying for a week or so to communicate with this individual to no avail. We have copyright concern related to copy and pasting and image uploaded with fake copyright associated with it. Editor is simply WP:Not here Moxy (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user was warring to restore an image which did follow Wikipedia's copyright rules. User has never posted to a talk page in their entire career. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tallterrilaw reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result:Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See 3rr warning. Despite complaining about a lack of reason, they've failed to respond to reasons given.

Comments:

User is just copying and pasting text from outdated and misidentified sources to promote the WP:FRINGE claim that Anu derives from Noah. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I note thatthe editor has made no attempt to use the talk page or respond at their talk page. Doug Weller  talk 19:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

User:71.245.242.138 reported by User:Lindenfall (Result: Page protected)
Page: User:

Please stop the edit warring on the page for Michelle Alexander by IP 71.245.242.138. Thank you.Lindenfall (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * by administrator . Mz7 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Cascorrin reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) "Change bad picture( loe resolution), for best picture" 3 February 2019
 * 2) "The header image of an Iveco Daily vangon has been changed to an image of an Iveco daily chassis cab in the version of more tonnage (1.000kg p.m.a.), the image is a current photo of its own work. Laimegen shows real geolocalization." 30 January 2019
 * 3) "an old article has been recovered, before the user Davey2010 changes all the photos" 21 January 2019
 * 4) "was changed by an earlier edition, that someone changed for personal purposes" 21 January 2019


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


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


 * Comments:

Cascorrin has constantly been changing an image to theres at Iveco Daily and has been edit warring over it, They tried editing as an IP which ofcourse got them blocked, They've repeatedly been told to go the talkpage and get consensus however instead of doing that they've just been edit warring over it,

They've also edit warred across various projects where I'm now having to report them for edit warring on those respective projects so this isn't just an isolated problem,

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The edit warring has spanned over a few days to weeks however given a block didn't solve anything I don't see how locking the article would be better, A block should've forced them to go the talkpage upon the block expiring, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Cascorrin has now decided to create another account and then revert me, SPI filed, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cascorrin was previously blocked one week for the same thing back in January and the socking is obvious. I've warned Cascorrin they are risking an indefinite block, and invited them to respond here. If no response, a cross-wiki block should also be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston, Well apparently the other account is unrelated to Cascorrin although it was noted it could be them or another sock, Anyway given naff all's been done on those other projects I'm beginning to wonder if a cross-wiki block may be the best thing here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See a previous discussion on the admin board of the French Wikipedia. Cascorrin made his own complaint in the section just below that. It seems Cascorrin also used over there. Cascorrin has been making similar edits to the leading image of Iveco Daily on the English, French, German and Portuguese Wikipedias. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've since asked for a cross-wiki block as although the issues would stop here they wouldn't stop on the 3/4 other projects, Given the respective projects haven't even replied to the reports I'd made there I don't see any other option than a global block,
 * EdJohnston - Given the edits here are not all that frequent I would have no objections if this was declined, Many thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is likely that other projects (or the stewards) would pay more attention if an indef block is issued here. So I'll still consider doing that, but wait a bit to see if User:Cascorrin will respond. User:Seedsleds is not Cascorrin per the SPI. An apparent joe-job rather than meatpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Cascorrin is warned they may be indefinitely blocked if they continue their revert war about the lead image of the Iveco Daily article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A response by Ajraddatz over at Meta was enlightening. I'll keep that in mind for the future when noticing problematic edits being made by the same user at multiple Wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry EdJohnston I was meant to have returned here after the discussion over there, Yeah it seems other than outright banning them from all projects there's not really much else that can be done, Anyway thank you for dealing with this it's much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by User:Aeusoes1 (Result: 2 warnings and an unblock)
Page:

(and more...)

User being reported:

Because this situation involves so many pages, I've opted to explain the pattern in the Comments below, which has example diffs. My apologies to anyone used to the normal format for reports of edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a case where the edit warring is across several dozen articles. The pattern goes as follows. An IP user (likely ) edited the article to include the symbol $⟨ɱ⟩$ in the IPA transcriptions of Italian. Ohnoitsjamie then used Rollback to revert this change, perhaps assuming that it's a contentious edit because of the "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" tag. But then Iuscaogdan restored their edit with an edit summary that links explicitly to this discussion that establishes that their edit is consistent with consensus on the issue. This should have been sufficient for Ohnoitsjamie to see that there was consensus behind the edits. However, Ohnoitsjamie instead used Rollback] again, clearly not having read the link.

What makes the matter worse is that Ohnoitsjamie issued a spurious edit warring notice and then deleted Iuscaogdan's response that explained how their edits had consensus before issing a block notification.

This seems like a breach of the rollback feature that shows a problematic misunderstanding of when it should be used and possibly a violation of WP:INVOLVED if Ohnoitsjamie really blocked someone they were edit warring with. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're reporting this; I was rolling back anon reverts of your edits, back to what I thought was your version. An edit filter in WP:AIV detected a new anon IP doing a series of reverts. Your edit summary indicated that the version I thought I was rolling back to was based on some consensus editors had reached on an IPA talk page, a discussion I'm not involved with. Regarding your assertion that the IP (who you assume is User:Iuscaogdan) tried to explain that their edit was consistent with the conensus, I assume you're referring to this attack? I would've happily acknowledged a mistake if either of you had bothered to explain to me in a civil fashion that I was misunderstanding what was going on. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The easy stuff first: was not WP:INVOLVED, since they were enforcing what they (mistakenly) thought was consensus on a subject they weren't involved in. They were sort of edit warring, but the "accidental, remind to be careful" kind, not the "sanction" kind.  Furthermore, it is clear that the IP editor is User:Iuscaogdan: see here and here, editing while logged out. Which is not a problem if people are editing non-disruptively (which they were, at the time).


 * The harder call: It would have been fantastic if Jamie had followed the link in the edit summary before reverting. After Jamie's first revert of the IP, it would have been fantastic if Iuscaogdan had explained what was going on.  But do we punish the person who's been wronged for not reacting the way we want them to?  I also really wish Iuscaogdan hadn't left this charming comment. I also wish Jamie hadn't blocked the IP and then the range for 1 week and 3 days, respectively, after that.


 * So this is an imperfect solution, but I'm going to (a) remind Jamie to be careful; if an IP editor is explaining what they're doing in an edit summary, you have an obligation to at least check that out. I'm also going to (b) unblock the IP range; while their douchy comment was unnecessary, enough went wrong on both sides that I think keeping the block in place is unfair.  Finally I'm going to (c) remind Iuscaogdan about personal attacks, and that having an account, but editing while logged out and getting into fights in the same subject area as that account, can get you in serious trouble.  I fear this will be considered unfair by both Jamie and Iuscaogdan, but it seems the best thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to own up to my mistakes, but in this case I don't feel like any good-faith effort was made to alert me of them prior to reporting them here. I'm fine with the IP being unblocked along with your cautions to all involved. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have mentioned,, if there's a similar situation in the future, please take the extra step of explaining what is going on before reporting them to a noticeboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had initially done that before I took a closer look and came to the conclusion that Ohnoitsjamie, by not looking at the edit summaries and talk page comments, was abusing Rollback. My gut told me that Ohnoitsjamie needed the teeth of a noticeboard to listen and I feel like my instincts were right. I'm satisfied with a warning. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like my instincts were right
 * . If your instincts are to use to use the noticeboards as a way to tattle on other editors in hopes of getting authority figures on your side as opposed to simply communicating with said editors, then I'll say that your instincts are dead wrong. --Calton &#124; Talk 16:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're twisting my words to have a completely different meaning from what I said, which was that Ohnoitsjamie wouldn't listen if it was just me. Look at their above initial responses, as well as this edit summary where they admit no wrongdoing and act as if no one notified them of their mistake before they continued on when this is most clearly false.
 * If you think this is tattling or some sort of moral dependency, then you've apparently never seen an accused edit warrior attempt to weasel their way out of sanctions by arguing that they don't have a history of edit warring. I don't have a "side" in the matter beyond what looks like an abuse of administrator tools. The standards are high for administrators because the tools they have are powerful. I'm not going to be browbeaten for using the noticeboard appropriately. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 881883662 by HistoryofIran (talk) I am ensuring that the utilized ref is accurately represented"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 881881653 by HistoryofIran (talk) Izady is the ref being used, this is the info in that ref"
 * 3)  "correcting the information per the already utilized Izady reference, see Talk page"
 * 4)  "This issue now noted in the first sentence, including the exact pg 198 Izady reference, which uses "Iranic", not "Iranian" as cited."
 * 5)  "this term redirects on its own"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 881593301 by Wikaviani (talk) the exact reference and mention of "Iranian" is already in the lead, a few sentences later"
 * 7) 04:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC) "This is already mentioned in the 2nd lead paragraph, no need to say it twice within a few sentences."
 * 1) 04:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC) "This is already mentioned in the 2nd lead paragraph, no need to say it twice within a few sentences."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor in question is battling against numerous users and trying to push his desired revision into the article through edit-warring without having reached a WP:CONSENSUS. Numerous users have objected against his POV (incl. on the talk page), and have told him to build consensus first, but he does not care and keeps on hitting that revert button. Bear in mind that said user also tried to remove a long-standing consensus note from the talk page (calling it "undue, clean up"), so there are definitely deeper issues in relation to Redthoreau's editorial pattern on this page, other than just sheer disruptive edit-warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * has not edited since your warning at 13:11. I agree that they are edit warring but (i) they have never been warned about this before and (ii) they have not yet breached 3RR and (iii) they are now using the talk page. So I think we should put this on hold and see how they respond and if they will now stop edit warring. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would dispute nearly every mischaracterization in this report, which conveniently leaves out all of the context of what occurred. For starters, [1] I have not done 3RR in the last 24 hours. Those edits are varying and not reverts. [2] I am using the talk page --> seen here. [3] I looked up the utilized reference for the claim he wants to preserve and found that is in fact INCORRECT, thus all I am guilty of is correcting it. [4] The dispute began because I believed Kurds should be referred to as “Iranic” rather than “Iranian”, for the same reason we semantically delineate between German / Germanic, Turkish / Turkic, Italian / Italic etc. In disagreement, LouisAragon then goes and pings (i.e. recruits) 6 other editors (@Doug Weller: @Meganesia: @Wikaviani: @Wario-Man: @HistoryofIran: @Khirurg) that I would suspect he believed would agree with his position (against Wiki polcy) and to give him an artificial consensus. [5] However, setting that aside, I decided to look up the reference that was being used for the claim in dispute. The article is utilizing Professor Mehrdad R. Izady’s work The Kurds: A Concise Handbook as the reference to say Kurds are “Iranian” in the very first sentence. So I looked at the work itself, and found that actually it was falsely being used, and that on pg. 37, “Kurds were and are Iranic” and pg. 198 (the pg # used in the 2 instance in the lead) “The Kurdish culture and language are indeed Iranic”. Thus, Izady actually states my desired wording! That “Iranic” is the correct term. So I notify everyone on the talk page that in fact the article is making a false claim utilizing that reference, and adjust the information to be accurate to Izady’s utilized reference. However, after doing that, one of LouisAragon’s formerly pinged people HistoryofIran, begins reverting me 1RR & 2RR, saying I need consensus and to use the talk page. Despite the fact I am the only one even using the talk page see -->here in relation to the Izady claim as they are making a false claim about a referenced work by a living person. Essentially, the article currently is claiming that Izady’s work makes a claim that it DOES NOT in fact make. [6] As for the talk page note which I never even reverted, LouisAragon knows that this exact issue arises over and over as his desired wording is incorrect. So to stifle debate and keep people from repeatedly bringing it up, he feels it’s justified to have a note on the talk page essentially saying “don’t dispute this incorrect material, it's settled”. That is why I also believed it was given undue weight, and removed it. Ironically, the note LouisAragon wants to preserve states "... please familiarize yourself with the cited sources", which is exactly what I did, and why I am being reverted by his recruited users.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I was pinged because I edit the page a lot. Redthoreau attacked User:HistoryofIran a few minutes ago saying that " This is actually worse than vandalism, as you are mischaracterizing the cited work of a living person (Izady)." Yes, RedThoreau has found a source, a good one, that says Iranic. But as you can see at Talk:Kurds I've shown that in Google Scholar and Google Books the term "Iranian" as applied at least specifically to "West Iranian" which is what the source is about, is used much more than "Iranic", up to 10:1. Redthoreau is treating one source as though it's a trump card. Doug Weller  talk 16:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that Redthoreau evidently meant to ping several editors but did it in plain text. I'll ping them: as they've been mentioned above and should know that.  Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , yes, LouisAragon pinged you, and 5 others, none of whom disagreed with his position. Thus it’s fair to ask if he’s merely calling on people he knows or suspects will give him consensus, which is against Wiki policy. And it’s not that I ‘found a source’. I am merely using the source which the article is currently relying on! In the very first sentence of the article, Izady’s book is falsely cited for a claim he does not make. It is in fact the ONLY reference given! So I looked up the work used and found that it is incorrectly used. And I corrected the word to exactly MATCH what Izady says, and I gave the page numbers and citations in the references. This is how Wikipedia works. I am actually genuinely puzzled how this is complicated? As I stated on the talk page, if a book says the sky is blue, you can’t utilize and reference it to say the sky is green.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * what happened is that you found that the source says "Iranic". As for it now being the only reference, at one point in the last few days the second sentence had 3 references including Izady, now it basically says the same thing in the first paragraph and the 2nd, with the 3 sources being distributed between them. Your version got rid of the sourced statement "they are culturally and linguistically classified as belonging to the Iranian peoples." The fact is that you are arguing on the talk page that we should only use "Iranic" and editwarring to get your way by deleting sources that use "Iranian". The fact that Izady is among a minority that use "Iranic" isn't sufficient reason to deleted the term used by most reliable sources. But this discussion really doesn't belong here. Doug Weller  talk 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have disagreed with all those "recruited" editors on numerous occassions.(e.g. --) The only reason I pinged them is because they are veteran editors with tons of experience on the West Asia topic area, and all of them have edited numerous Kurd-related articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are 3 references used in the lead currently dealing with the “Iranian” issue, the same 3 as before. 2 of those 3 are the same i.e. Izady’s book, the reference I am trying to ensure is correct as used. The 3rd, is also incorrect, as it’s cited as 2014 Encyclopedia, but is in fact linked to a --> 1996 one, that doesn’t say Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group, but rather oddly that “Soviet Kurds” speak a dialect that belongs to the “Northwestern Subgroup of the Iranian Group of the Indo-European Family.” Again, every time I check a source from the article it is incorrectly used.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , The issue isn’t whether you have disagreed with them in the past on other matters. The issue is on this specific topic, and whether you just pinged people you felt would agree with you. But actually you shouldn’t have pinged anyone, as it alters the organic process of consensus, if one party gets to invite editors of their choice to chime in on the matter and the other doesn’t. I am supposed to rely on those randomly reading the talk page, but you get to call in 6 people of your choice? How is that fair?  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller is an admin since a very long time and a CheckUser/Oversight as well. Why on earth would I ping an admin if I wanted to gather "support"?! Your words don't match up. No, I know very well what this is about. We all do. You were caught red-handed edit warring and trying to change long-standing content without WP:CONSENSUS i.e. being WP:TENDENTIOUS. The diffs are there for everyone to see. You only stopped reverting other editors when this case was opened. Its truly mind-boggling that an editor (supposedly around since 2007) is completely oblivious of the fact that he's been disruptive, and still doesn't want to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Its disturbing to say the least. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing admin: You might be interested in this WP:BATTLEGROUND-loaded edit summary. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , why are you pinging anyone? That isn't how a talkpage is supposed to work when 2 people have a disagreement. One doesn't get to invite a bunch of people they know or are familiar with. And the real 'battleground' is you opening up a report for 3RR when I didn’t in fact commit 3RR, and then leaving a comment on my own talk page warning me about it, in a dispute where you are in violation of Wiki policy not me. You are trying to game the system to your benefit, meanwhile I am the only one looking up all the incorrectly used sources you’re relying on, pointing it out on the article's talk page, and actually attempting to write the lead correctly.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, really. Why are you focusing on the fact that pinged some users ? This is a community encyclopedia, we are supposed to work together, this is why he pinged us. Also, as far as i can see, there is no Wiki rule against that. If you're referring to WP:CAN, this is perfectly irrelevant here. is a veteran admin, are you seriously charging him with bias ?! Come on ! And, as said above, we are far from being a team here and have disagreed on numerous occasions. You seem to try to divert this thread from the main point, i.e. your edit warring behaviour and refusal to achieve WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Doug's point about the number of hits on Google scholar is perfectly valid, since there are at least ten times more "Iranian" than "Iranic" and we use common names on this encyclopedia. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , My main point is very simple, that we should follow the wording of the utilized reference. I'm being reverted for doing that. To your other points, of course we work together, but if two people are having a disagreement and thus in a deadlock, and one of the users then invites 6 users they are familiar with, that potentially slants the consensus in their favor. Consensus is supposed to be related to those who are reading the talk page at the time on their own volition, not a matter of each side bringing in their own potential group of supporters. Any “consensus” that takes place after one side invites in people, isn’t real consensus for all intents and purposes. You are one of those he pinged, as are all those who have agreed with him on this report. Of note, not a single unpinged person has reverted me or replied in disagreement to me on the article talk page, only those LouisAragon invited. And no the bias isn’t related to, he was pinged and responded, so did nothing wrong. What I am saying is its wrong for to have pinged a bunch of people into the debate. As for Google Scholar, that isn’t the way to judge the claim. Of course the term “Iranian” is more common than “Iranic”, in the same way “German” is more common than “Germanic”, but that doesn’t mean Danes are German, despite the fact that they are Germanic. Likewise, the disputed claim is whether that Kurds are Iranian or Iranic, so that is what should be searched, not merely which word appears most in any context.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , You seem to be conviced that if we reverted your version, it's only because we support, but personally, it's not the case. I reverted to "Iranian" because we have to use WP:COMMON names here, and as you agreed above, "Iranian" actually is the common name. This has nothing to do with the modern country of Iran, this is only used in an ethno-linguistic sense, nothing more, nothing less (just like Pashtuns, Tajiks, etc ... who are not Iranian citizens but ethnic Iranians). Anyway, this discussion does not belong to this place, but to the article's talk page. Also, while you used the talk page, you kept edit-warring on the main space without having achieved any consensus and, worse, against numerous editors. You're a veteran user, right ? you certainly know that things don't work like that here, don't you ?  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you are concerned with common terminology, then you should know that Iranian and Iranic are two different things in the common parlance. The former is commonly seen as a citizen of the nation of Iran, while the latter is used for ethno-linguistic issues. Just like other instances (Turkish/Turkic etc). And it is only “edit-warring” because went and pinged a bunch of people that he has worked with before on similar articles. There is a edit history of him working with several of the editors he pinged on articles and of him even messaging them and telling them they have private emails from him in the past etc (so off site communication as well). Around 2 weeks ago, I even noticed on an article I’ve edited that LouisAragon again --> pinged 3 of the same users as this occasion “for their opinions” in a dispute on the Iraqi Kurdistan page. That proverbial stacking of the deck is not how Wiki is supposed to operate. Because it would be very easy for someone to form a ‘team’ of 4-5 like-minded users and use coordination to basically go article by article and create the appearance of consensus, and revert others, and then report for 3RR if they revert back.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears Redthoreau is only interested in masking his disruption by casting ungrounded aspersions. He's trying to blame the fact that everyone disagrees with him on them being supposedly "canvassed". Also, why did he attack another user, as demonstrated by Doug Weller?- He also never responded to that, even though Doug Weller mentioned it on two occassions. Even though Wikaviani and a certain "Qahramani44" were the first ones to revert Redthoreau, Redthoreau's still accusing me of "canvassing" (?!) other veteran editors into this, when I just asked for opinions. There's no Wikipedia policy that states that other users can't be invited to comment through a neutral message. His assertion that I only pinged those that were my "buddies" is disproven, as I have demonstrated that I have had numerous arguments/clashes with the same users as well. My message on the talk page was as neutral as it could be. Heck, I even invited Doug Weller to comment, a seasoned admin. I don't think I've even ever interacted with before pinging him on the Talk:Kurds and Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan page. This is pure banter. I believe its time for admins to step in and close this case. I'm done here. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , if what you said above was true about asking other users' opinion, then WP:RFC or WP:THIRD would be useless. Asking for other editors' opinion is clearly not gaming the system or trying to achieve a fake consensus. at some point, you just need to trust other people's opinion, i don't say everything is perfect with this, but whether you like it or not, this is how this stuff works. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Redthoreau is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Kurds unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)