Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive386

User:MattanJohnson11 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Stable version of the article (especially the infobox):

Diffs of the user's reverts: This new account has been re-inserting extraneous material into the infobox added by other accounts and adding other extraneous material despite a discussion of this on the talk page, and is edit warring against multiple editors. Please see the article history and the below diffs (note that most of the diffs are the combination of a series of edits):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (since this report was lodged)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Has been warned four times, and twice been asked to join the talk page discussion, ,  The edit warring has continued since the fourth warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Pacific War. MattanJohnson11 has ignored this, and instead posted a new thread trying to justify their edit warring where they state that they are being disruptive:

Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this report was lodged, the editor has posted this and this in which they state they will try to evade any block and continue edit warring as "I love edit warring", and continued edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – The user has stated 'I love edit warring' which does raise the possibility that they might be a sock. (Is this a case of 'please block me'?). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:141.8.119.87 reported by User:Izno (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The consensus position includes the category in question. A discussion has started on the talk page but the editor has not yet engaged. Izno (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Casperti reported by User:Shashank5988 (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2 February 2019
 * 2) 2 Feburuary
 * 3) 5 February
 * 4) 20 February
 * 5) 9 March
 * 6) 10 March
 * 7) 10 March

Removing same content all the time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Just a disruptive WP:SPA who himself admits that he "don't want to edit other page" than Pashtuns. He is here only for engaging in edit warring and WP:BATTLE. All he does is spew his ethnicity based stories by spewing what he believes in and accuse all other editors of socking,[ while he engages in canvassing to recruit editors for supporting his ethnic POV. I recommend a WP:NOTHERE block. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is just threatening a newbie on Wikipedia. I was Directed by User:Dough Weller to make a talk page, and ask for third party opnion. Which is in my right. You can read what I wrote to those Pashtun wiki project experts. see: WP:ACCUSE and WP:SEEKHELP.The talk page Where we should discuss the 1 source given on Wikipedia for the Pashtun Hindus. As anyone can read, I did not give a point of view but dozen sources that explain the fact. I debunked on 9 March the 1 source and you guys are stilling reverting me without showing me why. I even saw 2 VPN that was used for this, I do not claim it was you but it makes the situation more untrustable. Everyone can see I did not give any opinion. Only sources I gave. It is in Wikipedia's interest to discuss. We shouldn't blindly accept something that was edited on 23 march 2018 and no-one is in the right to change that. Every admin can read the talkpage and see that I am not throwing an opinion but real scientific sources and documentaries/books of the Hindus themselves. Shashank5988 please stop Threatening me. I even said if I don't find a proper source it can stand. But I showed you everything and you are still not giving any source to debunk me. Just join the discussion. The only thing you did was attacking me and showing that 1 source of that Filmmaker over and over again. I have always requested help for an admin for this matter. Please admins, help us to find third parties who know a lot about the Pashtuns. (btw dont accuse things like ethnic POV, like I said i'm a Persian speaking Tajik). You just want to censor me. Admin there is really many third parties needed that chose no sides (so non-Hindu/Indians or Afghan, Pashtun expert). Or if there is an Afghan-Hindu editor that would be the best. That would be the best scennarios. So admin help is indeed needed  Casperti (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Another admin has fully-protected the article, so I don't think any further action is needed at this time. is free to continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and work toward building a consensus among editors for their changes. Only after new consensus is reached should the page be changed, not before. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what we needed. Now, we have to discuss what we can agree upon (consensus) without edit reverting without reason.Casperti (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Casperti, but given the multiple voices who have chimed in the discussion, we already have consensus to retain the information. Continuing to state that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't helpful, but rather, disregards others who all feel that the information should be retained. You've been asked not to change the article until a new consensus is reached and you should respect that. As you were nearly blocked for edit warring (I requested that the article be protected so that it would not come down to this), my personal recommendation is that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and edit other articles. Remember that the threshold for including items on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have multiple references that support the information in the article and will thus keep it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ted hamiltun reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He has already in his short time spammed various talk pages with his rants and aggressive behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with HistoryofIran. I have had no interaction with "Ted hamiltun" yet their rantings of "Persian users Community", can be seen throughout their editing. Clearly this editor, who has edited sporadically since Dec. 2017, is here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I will also agree with the above points, and bring to attention another aspect of his behavior too.
 * If you check the log of the Agal article here, you can see that a few days ago, he started swapping between multiple different IP addresses (with the same commenting style) to change the same article. Not sure if that's disallowed or not, but it seems suspect to me, especially since it's seemed to result in temporary protection of said article . -- Qahramani44 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The reported user is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. His edit history shows non-stop edit warring, ignoring other editors' messages and edit summaries, IP-hopping, and nationalistic rants. He even deleted and manipulated this report. So I support indefinite block for him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation on Origin of the name Khuzestan. If disruption continues after the block please refer to WP:ANI for possible indefinite block. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:206.45.24.97 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887216828 by PeterTheFourth (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887207009 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887203302 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 887201521 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 887201166 by EvergreenFir (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned on user talk twice. w umbolo  ^^^  09:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're about an hour late the war has moved to another page. 206.45.24.97 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, you've moved onto childish edit-warring over bogus warning templates -- basically, vandalism. Just block the IP and be done with it. --Calton &#124; Talk 09:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . Let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 reported by User:46.208.152.52 (Result: nothing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 19:05, 10 March 2019
 * 2)  - 20:21, 10 March 2019
 * 3)  - 20:26, 10 March 2019
 * 4)  - 20:33, 10 March 2019
 * 5) and see also four other reverts on two other articles at the same time:, , ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A user has reverted my edits four times in 1h28m. My edits included removing an image gallery (Wikipedia's image use policy says that image galleries are appropriate if the images, as a collection, illustrate some aspect of the topic. Simple arbitrary collections of images are what the Wikimedia Commons is for) and creating stubs to replace redirects. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not see four reverts. Unless the IP is implying that they have (also) broken WP:3RR and should be sanctioned? —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I listed the four reverts, together with their times, under the heading "diffs of the user's reverts".
 * [ec] Well, the most recent version seems to be a median between the two y'all were fighting over. Happy now? And you, IP, are just as guilty of edit warring as Imzadi. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I edited in accordance with policy, and did not break the 3RR. The user I am reporting did not edit in accordance with policy, and they did break the 3RR. The sourced content which I added, and they deleted, is still deleted. But apparently I'm as guilty as they are, and should feel happy right now? No and no. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that they made four reverts to that article within a 24-hour period. There is no violation to act on here. Please continue to work toward a consensus or median version of the page, and make sure to use the talk page rather than edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I listed the four reverts. They made them within a 90 minute period. Why are you pretending that this did not happen? 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fourth edit you listed is not a revert. It changed the formatting. The third edit—I hesitate to brand it a revert, since it was really a matter of fixing formatting. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If an edit undoes, in whole or in part, a change that someone else had just made, then it is a revert. The user made four reverts in 90 minutes. I would have thought an administrator would know the rules, and would attempt to explain themselves clearly when claiming that they had not been violated instead of playing a Nelson-style "I see no violation" game. What is the point of this supposed "bright-line" rule if it is going to be arbitrarily ignored? 46.208.152.52 (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at context, it seems clear that thought "oh shit, about to violate 3RR, best stop and do something else" - which is kind of what the policy is designed to do. Endorse no action. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very weird that three people, all apparently administrators, are bending over backwards to ignore or downplay this violation, and to interpret the user's actions positively. They had already reverted four times when you decided it was clear to you what they were thinking; they reverted a fifth time not long after. 82.132.222.62 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:9W 3937 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Get lost, please discuss instead of only reverting"
 * 2)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Consensus reached sucessfully"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887023659 by 9W 3937 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 887002031 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 886932654 by Abdotorg (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
 * 7)  "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
 * 8)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
 * 1)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
 * 2)  "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
 * 3)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
 * 1)  "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
 * 2)  "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Relentless edit-warring against multiple editors. PAs on edit-summaries. Use of socks, article had to be semi-protected, but despite that, these confirmed new accounts are still edit-warring adding cruft into the article. Regular editors had to ask for help; that's where I came in to try to help them. Dr.  K.  10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is almost certainly a sock of 9W 3937, not only it posted the identical message at my talk page (sock dif, 3GFRIENDSNSD dif), it also re-inserted the same fancruft and "article is outdated" maintenance template at Gugudan, same as 9W 3937 did. Snowflake91  (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I just CU-blocked User talk:3GFRIENDSNSD, User talk:MTR 553890, User talk:9W 3937. Pretty revolting how the one account claimed to be neutral. In addition, there is a huge amount of IP editing going on--some of it possibly just logged-out editing, but not all of it. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, there is so much of it, on a variety of IPs--I suggest someone start an SPI, and ask a CU (who knows ranges well) to see if any ranges need closer scrutiny, or maybe a block. And it may be there's some older accounts we can call a master. Right now, at lunchtime, this is more than I can handle without a notepad and some food. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – User:9W 3937 and two other accounts by User:Drmies for socking. Another admin has semiprotected Gugudan for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:VwM.Mwv (Result: No action for now)

 * 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:
 * 1) On article edit summary:
 * 2) On user talk page:


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

The user has ignored (they keep editing) all of my messages, both on the article's edit summary, the article's talk page, and their own talk page. I have refrained from reverting yet again. M  .   M  12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Sockpuppet reported. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: reverted to the version before this edit war,  and MehrdadFR reverted them, too, describing it as "Zionist hate propaganda". This occurred an hour after I gave them the notices about edit warring. M  .   M  13:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note 2: MehrdadFR's sockpuppet investigation request against me was declined by an administrator and SPI clerk. M  .   M  14:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am VwM.Mwv's mentor. I would like to note that opening 2 SPI cases - Plot Spolier, AndresHerutJaim 8-18 minutes after this report being opened, as well as using the edit summary: "WP:LEAD is plagued by Zionist hate propaganda" diff by MehrdadFR - is not acceptable editing or a response to an AN/EW report. Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: User "MehrdadFR" has been blocked on no less than 6 occassions for edit-warring on sensitive Iran/West Asia-related topics. Curiously; all six blocks were the result of violating WP:3RR . He was also subjected to a topic ban in the recent past for being WP:TENDENTIOUS in the very same topic area. Most of MehrdadFR's edits involve promoting the narrative of the current Iranian regime and downplaying everything else. Looking at the compelling evidence, in combination with the stuff he writes here on this talk page ("Your edits are pure WP:FRINGE garbage"), I'm wondering whether this user is actually here to build this encyclopedia. He has been given a lot of "second chances" over the past few years, to no avail it seems. (copy-pasted my comment from Talk:Iran) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note The article is already protected the user is participating in the discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now, given the discussion being organized by User:Drmies at Talk:Iran. But if reverting continues from here on, I would not be surprised to see some admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Ted hamiltun (Result: No violation demonstrated)
Page:

User being reported:

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

This users keep removing the request of Refrence for phrases that dose not exist in given sources, watch the page and the talk section please

Page:

User being reported:

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

This user even reverted the information on naming of the Gulf,which was a Middle Persian sasanian text with reliable sources wich Names the Gulf, Arabian Gulf

User:HistoryofIran removed this Information

How ever one of the oldest documented refrence to Gulf may be the one mentioned in Middle Persian text on geography "Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr" (literally "The Provincial Capitals of Iran"), which is a source of historical records concerning names of the Sasanian kings as the builder of the various cities, It is in this Persian document that sasanias make the unique reference to gulf as "Daryay Taziyan" (In Persian : دریای تازیان) which literally means "Arabian Gulf or The Gulf of The Arabs"

Now what was wrong with this information with reliable source that user User:HistoryofIran removed it from Persian Gulf article, This is clear act of abusing of Wikipedia meant to Boycott other opinions and POV pushes

Ted hamiltun (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ted hamiltun: Be advised that will we be looking at all edits to the article as part of HistoryofIran's report above—and it is very bad practice to remove another user's report from the noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The filer, User:Ted hamiltun, has since been blocked 48 hours by User:MSGJ for removing someone else's 3RR report from the board. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Georg Wurst reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bower&diff=887245315&oldid=887159458]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bower&diff=887250248&oldid=887245850]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bower&diff=887254653&oldid=887253792]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Bower&diff=887258222&oldid=887255054]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georg_Wurst&diff=887255036&oldid=887254881]

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

Comments:

Multiple removal of factual content, while accusing several editors of antisemitism. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:97.65.122.30 reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

IP adding repetitive unimportant event to current events section. Reverting after being reverted. Reverts more than 4 times in past 24 hours. Does not discuss at talk page. Jim7049 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC):


 * – 24 hours by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:3TTT5 reported by User:Lubbad85 (Result:No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

Original title: Bengal Cat article Photo edit warring with infobox photo over a ten year period 

I have notified each user on their talk page and posted to the edit warring page. Looking for help and or guidance: 3TTT5 has been posting the same photo into the infobox on the Bengal cat going back 10 years. In the history of the page, every time the photo is updated this user replaces it with the photo 3TTT5 desires. I have messaged the users on his/her talk page, and reverted 3TTT5's photo 2-3 times. I do not want to be in an edit war. After I reverted the last attempt by 3TTT5, another user reverted the edit using the same photo and language that 3TTT5 prefers: I suspect that user: 108.189.2.131 is the same person since he/she has used the same language about this photo. Thank you

Lubbad85 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article talk page, I don't see where there has ever been any discussion about which image should be used on the article. You should start a discussion there and find a consensus on which image should be used.  If necessary having an WP:RFC.  ~ GB fan 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I think this is a unique edit war. One decade long...

Diffs of the user's reverts: from user 3TTT5 only editing the infobox photo and caption every time
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

and same edit and language from 108.189.2.131  appears to be the same user with a different user account Lubbad85 (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * There is no edit war here. There is a long standing disagreement about what picture should be used on the article.  No one has ever tried to discuss what picture should be used.  This needs to go the article talk page and have a discussion about what picture should be the main picture on the article.  ~ GB fan 10:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JamesOredan reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:31, 10 March
 * 2) 11:02, 11 March
 * 3) 12:08, 11 March
 * 4) 12:52, 11 March
 * 5) 13:45, 11 March
 * 6) 14:17, 11 March
 * 7) 15:20, 11 March

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I fear WP might not be the right place for JamesOredan. Several recent blocks for both edit warring and sockpuppetry, this massive edit war against several other users does not look good. This is not even the only article on which he is edit warring today [Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]. Given both recent behavior and behavior today, I recommend a very long break. Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, the diff for the 3RR warning points to the article? ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interests of fairness, why have you not blocked who has also violated 3RR on this article?, , ,  and why have you not told JamesOrdean how to appeal a block? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  18:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked JamesOredan with a standard block notice plus a comment. He removed both. You're welcome to block anyone you believe deserves to be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question of who deserves to be blocked, but rather who must be blocked; I would have probably done 2 weeks (escalating from previous blocks) and referred the situation to ANI. Still, if he's not interested in getting unblocked, then I guess we're done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of what is "fair and just", we should really look at the long-term picture. LiliCharlie made a total of only five reversions during the dispute, whereas (starting on 25th December) JamesOredan made 21 - which included four on 12th February and eight on 10th/11th March. So there is absolutely no comparison between those two users. (The task of correcting JamesOredan's reversions was shared between five editors). --DLMcN (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DePiep‎ reported by User:R8R (Result:No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:05, 23 February 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  11:25, 23 February 2019
 * 2)   22:01, 8 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I will note I had never participated in conflicts such as this one before and did not know what the appropriate reaction would be. I have, however, mentioned three times that not following a consensus will incur consequences, even if I did not at that moment know which those would be.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: According to WP:Edit warring, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," and it appears to me this refers to cases such as this one. Events unfolded as follows:

One day, DePiep comes over the said article and changes all spellings of "aluminum" to "aluminium," arguing that this would be in compliance with WP:ALUM. I undid that revert, explaining on the talk page why I thought WP:ALUM was not applicable for that particular article. Twenty minutes after, I was accused of not applying the rule instead of arguing for its inapplicability in this case (which was the opposite of what I had said), and fifteen minutes later, without giving me a chance to respond, they revert my revert. I reiterated my point that WP:ALUM was not applicable for that article and instead of succumbing to an edit war myself, called for the relevant WikiProjects to provide more opinions. All these opinions were in favor of inapplicability of WP:ALUM for the target article (there were four of them, and three of these four were beyond mere yeas). Over the course of discussion, DePiep has made a couple more accusations that were denied and did not return any sympathy at all. In the end, there was a clear consensus: WP:ALUM is not applicable here. I have a few times suggested that if DePiep were unhappy with this outcome, they may ask for some external judgment (at the time, I thought it would be the Arbitration Committee, but now it seems it should have been Dispute resolution noticeboard).

I decided to take advice from one of the editors who had participated in the discussion, expanding the part on how Hall shaped how the name of the metal is spelled in the United States (essentially, adding more content). Yet I was undone with the comment "per talk: let's not overdo that "alumnium" WP:ALUM thing" (which is funny because none of this is true: a) nobody, including DePiep, had argued that such expansion was undesirable and thus there would be nothing relevant on the talk page, b) WP:ALUM was found to be inapplicable, and c) even if it were applicable, it has nothing with what content should or should not be in an article; it merely regulates how one word (or, if you count the other elements as well, three) should be spelled in certain articles). What I see is that DePiep is failing to recognize the outcome of the discussion (which revolves around the statement that WP:ALUM is not applicable) and keeps making edits despite the said outcome, even if it takes them to remove content without any actual explanation other than a reference to an argument that was never made and a clearly irrelevant rule. I was unfortunately unable to find a rule that would specifically say that not following a consensus was in its scope, and I presumed the situation would be regarded as edit warring (that's the impression I got from the last paragraph of Edit warring), even if the other party does not succumb to excessive reverting to match opponent's ambitions.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what should be done as a result. A 24-hour block wouldn't do anything given the pace of the dispute; a two-week block would seem excessive. (Then again, I'm not a huge fan of blocks in general and you may judge otherwise.) I would normally prefer to resolve this via discussion, but I'm afraid discussion won't get us anywhere as there is not a possibility DePiep might suppose they could possibly be wrong or at least accept they're in severe minority. I see one of the previous discussions on this page ended with a warning; I'd be happy with that outcome.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I'll have to read the guidelines and so to make a complete, well crafted comment, having all the dots and commas right, so maybe later more. Anyway: NO, the "3rd R" reported here is not to be judged as such. It followed the talkpage discussion (es even referred to it), it did not reinstate a previous version I have promoted, it did not contradict the consensus (as concluded by R8R themselves btw [to clarify: that is, R8R concluded the 'consensus' themselves in the discussion R8R had opened. To that, I have not complained nor did I revert any pre-state in any way (I left it to be "aluminum"). This does not state that the concluding process was correct]), etcetera. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 a(UTC)
 * As for the timeline: original BRD started 2019-02-23 (talk opened by R8R, good). It was concluded by R8R on 2019-03-01, nine days ago. So I did not revert to previous, non-consensus (my preferred) version, and not in a "24h" or time-stressed order. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even worse: the first two edits brought in here are from Feb 23, the "3rd offence" is from Mar 8. That is thirteen days between. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick notice: I'm very busy at the moment but I will respond in 12 hours. If I don't, then consider that I have fallen powerless after what promises to be a very hard day as soon as I got home and be sure to see me respond tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm only asking not to take a word that DePiep says (or, for that matter, that I say) about the consensus that I pointed out. Check the discussion and observe it for yourselves; feel free to reprimand me if you don't find one.--R8R (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mind waiting extra time. I'd prefer quality. So a hurry is not needed IMO. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me reply to the original post R8R made here (the long one). The opening statements try to reproduce the discussion but with a specific negative tone towards my contributions in the discussion (opening: "One day, DePiep comes over ..."). I note that, after initially being pinged by me, R8R opened the discussion and concluded it, with some unfair judgements & approaches wrt me. The conclusion (=stating the consensus) has serious flaws then, about which I didn't find any need or usefullness to complain at the moment. (One: "Nobody said that the rule itself [=guideline WP:ALUM] was bad", while I had pointed out such statement by an other editor, a statement incidentallly followed by accusation that it "is really not for you to decide, [DePiep]". Two: an other editor first accused me that I had "misinterpreted WP:ALUM", while then misquoting from that same link&mdash;twice). I also did not protest then the conclusion part to add a separate section no less about this very spelling issue that was just thrown out: an unsollicited and undiscussed deviation, and counter to the gist of the conclusion (that is: not the topic and not relevant). IOW, this was smuggled in. Anyway, protests should be at "Arbitration Committee" was noted.
 * I do not object the handling in general of the discussion by R8R, a detailed and elaborate enterprise it was. I do object being painted there and here as an obstinate or whatever while I was and I am loyal to the overall outcome of the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read & said this, and as not to abuse good editor's energy, I will leave the content discussion and so leave the article to others re this issue. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * An initial edit and two reverts of different material over the course of two weeks with active discussion on the talk page is not edit warring. ~ GB fan 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Omar hoftun reported by User:Zefr (Result: Both editors blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Phyllanthus. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sambucus. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Phyllanthus. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* March 2019 */ comment; edit warring - no consensus-seeking"


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


 * Comments:

User has been admonished to engage in discussion and seek consensus on the respective talk pages. User is trying to add a primary research, non-English source to numerous articles. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Yerevantsi reported by User:Jahmalm (Result: Malformed)
Page: Ezdiki

User being reported: Yerevantsi

Comments: Edit-war and ethno-pov changes in Ezdiki article.—Jahmalm (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dimsar01 and user:Robster1983 reported by User:Robster1983 (Result: Agreement to discuss)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I don’t know how this works, but me and Dimsar01 are in an edit war. Instead of going in, I just would like a non biased person to have a look at the page. It involves the high ticket prices of this year’s contest. I reckon it should be mentioned, others, however, don’t want it in the article. Is there anyone who could give us some guidance? 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. And I want to ask for the protection of the page to be changed back to Extended Confimed as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators. —<b style="color: #18b26f;">Dimsar01</b> <b style="color: #282aaf;">Talk</b> ⌚→ 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There’s at least something we agree on. I hope this works out for all of us. 🙂 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since it appears that Robster1983 and Dimsar01 have agreed to a proper discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019 after an intervention by admin User:Samsara. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be resolved. Many thanks to everyone who has helped, and also thanks to User:Dimsar01 for being constructive. 「Robster1983」 <font color="Purple">☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Brocicle (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User had a 48 hour block for the same behaviour and as soon as the block is lifted returned to do the same thing they were initially blocked for as you can see by the timing of their edits and block notice of their talk page. Editors have warned User Endowe yet again in edit summaries about edit warring and going against consensus but actions show they fail to care. Brocicle (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for reporting. This editor is definitely behaving inappropriately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MusicHead24 reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |00:10, 6 March 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |23:31, 8 March 2019
 * 2) |00:52, 9 March 2019
 * 3) |11:23, 9 March 2019
 * 4) |09:47, 13 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |11:54, 9 March 2019‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |12:18, 9 March 2019

Comments:

The user has not strictly broken 3RR, but it is quite clear that they intend to continue edit warring to insert this material no matter what. They have clearly broken WP:V by reinserting uncited challenged material. They have been informed of this requirement here and another user supported that position here. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * indefinitely. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:78.54.190.20 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887441211 by 7 qz (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ RfC: When are you planning to fix your edits? (Messed up replacement of template:Infobox Russian governorate, putting the type labelled as "Political status" in the field for higher level subdivision)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887441042 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ new section"
 * 5)  "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ Now on ANI"
 * 1)  "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ Now on ANI"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Has repeatedly posted the same spam on my talk page despite multiple warnings to stop. CLEAR violation of WP:NOBAN  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't SPAM. 78.54.190.20 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not helping your case. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User also is edit warring over at ANI removing an editors close. Kb03 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 21 edits from this IP, Over half have been reverts. Remember that this user IP hops so blocking just 78.54.190.20 won't help. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 78.28.54.83 is another IP that appears related. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If making a comment in an ANI thread makes someone "related" (*shivers*) then there are a few registered users that perhaps also should be listed, wouldn't you say? Hopefully not because it's nonsense. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Talk page semi-protected. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * can you help me understand your decision? I'm usually not one to question an admin, but IMHO this was such an overt violation of WP:3RR that protecting the page seems like an odd resolution. To me this seems like a clear case for a block. Just would like to hear your thoughts if you are willing to share? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't semi-protect your page, did. Since it's within the bounds of administrator discretion, I closed the report as that being an appropriate action. I think he also blocked the IP. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * fastest response EVER! Lol. My talk page wasn't actually what I was referring to. The Clear case IMHO was 78.54.190.20's actions on the WP:ANI page. My talk page was protected because of another IP vandal. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that'll be because I thought the notification was going to say "Your edit on [blah] has been reverted by [x]" ... anyway, the IP has stopped commenting at ANI, and because your talk page is semi-protected, I don't think anything else is going to happen. It's possible the IP has been recycled, or that the user behind it has lost interest. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Thanks for the info! -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AdusNow reported by User:Shoy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887576511 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887576051 by Shoy (talk) MNC Group di MNC Vision"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887575189 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 866426921 by Roxy the dog (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring. It appears that English is not this user's first language. Also edit warred on Info but stopped short of 3RR. shoy (reactions) 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert to accepted version, remove birth date (privacy issues, as they are used as identifiers in some countries)"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */ remove BLP material. In light of #metoo, this is not suitable for hashing out on Wikipedia"
 * 3)  "Revert to earlier version that does not violate BLP, arbcomm decision, #ibelievewomen #metoo"
 * 1)  "Revert to earlier version that does not violate BLP, arbcomm decision, #ibelievewomen #metoo"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Moving & replying"
 * 2)   "/* Help Request */ Replying to RhinosF1 (reply-link)"


 * Comments:

Has also edited while logged out. Suggest Semi/EC protect the page at least and block the user as they obviously know what they're doing. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad this has been reported. See the talk page for the Arbcomm decision on Marsden, which is being ignored by this admin. There has been a concerted effort to denigrate this woman's report of sexual assault. People could get away with that 10 years ago, but in the age of #metoo and #Ibelievewomen, when Wikipedia has taken so much heat over its hostility to women, it might be time for a cold, hard look at how Marsden has been treated over the years. Is it because she is Wales' ex-girlfriend? I do believe women. We have seen so many cases of sexual assault that fit the Simon Fraser University pattern, and that were papered over. I haven't edit warred. I have followed the Arcomm decision to the letter. Three revert rule does not aSpoonkymonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not an admin which is why it's here. If I was, Id have protected it first. You've failed to discuss something where editors obviously disagree with you. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already dealt with it in a talk page post two or three weeks ago. I brought up the targetting of this woman, the long history of attacks on her and the change of attitude in recent years to women's claims of sexual assault. Today, I also asked people to read the Arbcomm decision linked on the talk page, which says the 3 revert rule does not apply to removal of disproportionate negative material about this person (or BLP issues in general). Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your post did not show consensus for it and despite being reverted you continued to make the change while both logged in and while logged out. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had removed the derogatory material on Feb. 26 and posted on the talk page the same day. Almost three weeks later, the material, with violates both BLP and the arbcomm decision was returned by someone who did not engage on the talk page and did not ask for consensus, and now the page is locked with these BLP violations. Today, a series of socks attacked my edits and targeted my talk page. At least one has already been blocked.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * for 4 days under WP:AC/DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lsw10 reported by User:Dawid2009 (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:



 Comments I suggest reviev all constributions of this user and his whole talk page. This is not first time when someone discuss with him with good faith and later (after his ignorances) report him as vandalising this page (frankly it is just accident that this user never has been warned by short blockade). Actually this page is so very ofted occupited by various editors who are engaded in edit war that it need seriousl more pagewatchers.

In context of article to be clear: Number of counts for Gerd Muller and Pele are currently overrepresented and should be reverted to version of article where these counts are no longer overrepresented. The counts include France Football's voters and these voters were Winners of Ballon d'Or before this plebistice. This information clearly is described at source/refecence number 9. The only plaayers who who did not voted are Stanley Matthews, Omar Sívori, George Best and Lev Yashin because of all these four players were died before this plebistic. In current version of article is problem because of the column which include People who favorize Pele as "Greates of All time" there are mentioned Ferenc Puskas, Gianni Rivera, Franz Beckenbauer Johan Cruyff and Michel Platini and these five players are couted despite fact They are already covered by information about 17 of the first Ballon d'or winners. This is no way to an player get double representation from other one player. Sorry for my English and please solute this problem. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't warn them or notify them of this discussion (I've done the former). Why don't you discuss on the talk page? As a content dispute, it seems pretty mild at the moment, and you might find yourself reaching a consensus as to the material. Happy editing! ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not have technical ability to correct this list because of my English is not enaugh good to correct this page. Here is revert of my edit which wa clearly described in this edition. Me and other editiors tried discuss many times but he ignored all suggestions for consensus. I am opened for new chenges in  structure of the article but it is another problem which I started already here. This revert is clearly wrong. Why only Pele has to get double counts from Golden Ball's winners but not Gerd Muller and Di Stefano? This does not make any sense. And I have explained it above. I am opened for new changes but I do can not find any good faith in this user when he revert my edit to version of article where number of counts are overrepresented . Dawid2009 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why Billy Bonds isn't on the list :)  but, seriously, those are all excellent points for discussion you make there—please, do so on talk, and ping interested editors!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly your specifical example with Billy Bonds was not any surprising for me ;) (Magico Gonzalez achivement only [one bad season in Primera Division and he also [[1982 FIFA World Cup|played one horrible World Cu]]p but he is stille wiedly compared to Pele and Maradona. Schockingly probably for you would be fact that Maradona (as being his big fan) described him as inspirational player at trening meanwhile Maradaona is considered speciffically as great soccer player at training, not at matches just like other players - this is why definition of "greates of all time" or "one of greatest" is infinietly subjective/complicated and very speciffically in soccer. But beyond that and to be more serious: I think we should start correct version of the article in  Sandbox. Why we have to accept sourced information if and only if someone add WP:WEASEL source about his favourite player? Problem sound amusing but frankly this page get a lot of pageviews and shows innacurate imagination. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added information about where she currently lives."
 * 2)  "To achieve a neutral point of view and present another side, I added statements of Greenpeace's founder criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal"
 * 3)  "My edit was previously reverted by another editor who dismissed the statements by Patrick Moore as rantings of a lunatic. This is a problem with many Wikipedia editors and administrators.  While espousing a neutral point of view, they use their own opinions to dismiss statements they disagree with or which do not align with their invariably leftist point of view.  To be neutral, both sides of an issue should be included if supported by citation - not just those you agree with."
 * 4)  "Added Controversy section.  Included ethical complaints, criticism of Green New Deal by a Greenpeace founder (check the cite), criticism by Fed Chair of her reliance on Modern Monetary Theory, criticism of her tax plan by Bill Gates, and criticism of her moving to a luxury apartment building with no affordable housing units. Inclusion of a "Criticism" section is necessary to ensure a neutral point of view in this article."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 887666778 by PunxtawneyPickle (talk)"
 * 6)  "Controversy, with factual statements cited to approved cites, needs to be included to achieve a neutral point of view"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two 1RR violation in 48 hours. Bent on inserting POV material, as well as personal attacks under WikiLove misuse trolling. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * JohnTopShelf was given discretionary sanctions notices about BLPs in August, and American Politics in February. Bradv 🍁  03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

. I've filed an ANI thread for the separate incivility problem. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings from numerous people they did it again. I have blocked them for 72 hours for edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vicheasambath reported by User:Andrewgprout (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Phnom Penh International Airport . (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I strongly suspect the user here is the same user (42.115.2.208)that was blocked by at 08:35 12 March 2019.

I and other editors have left messages on the users talk page. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DanielJTown reported by User:Pfhorrest (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be a WP:SPA that exists only to repeatedly "correct" a WP:ENGVAR spelling despite an embedded comment clarifying that that is disruptive. User is probably the same as several anonymous IPs that were doing the same thing shortly before user's account was created. Pfhorrest (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887670659 by Tsumikiria (talk) Controversy, with factual statements cited to approved cites, needs to be included to achieve a neutral point of view."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887666778 by PunxtawneyPickle (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added Controversy section.  Included ethical complaints, criticism of Green New Deal by a Greenpeace founder (check the cite), criticism by Fed Chair of her reliance on Modern Monetary Theory, criticism of her tax plan by Bill Gates, and criticism of her moving to a luxury apartment building with no affordable housing units. Inclusion of a "Criticism" section is necessary to ensure a neutral point of view in this article."
 * 4)  "My edit was previously reverted by another editor who dismissed the statements by Patrick Moore as rantings of a lunatic. This is a problem with many Wikipedia editors and administrators.  While espousing a neutral point of view, they use their own opinions to dismiss statements they disagree with or which do not align with their invariably leftist point of view.  To be neutral, both sides of an issue should be included if supported by citation - not just those you agree with."
 * 5)  "To achieve a neutral point of view and present another side, I added statements of Greenpeace's founder criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal"
 * 6)  "Added information about where she currently lives."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Where subject lives */  Bottom-of-the-barrel journalism. See also WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:COPYVIO."


 * Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Also addition of copyvios in the same 1RR violation. Recently blocked for 48 hours for AE violations. Dr.  K.  03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This is a duplicate filing; not surprising because their edit warring has been blatant and unresponsive to warnings. I have blocked them for 72 hours for EW. There is also a discussion at ANI about them. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Melanie. I didn't notice the earlier report. Dr.   K.  04:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JohnTopShelf was previously blocked here in February for warring on the same article per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive385. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours by User:MelanieN per a report at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JamieShupe reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detransition&oldid=887661676
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detransition&oldid=887663766
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detransition&oldid=887671277
 * 4) (edit warring, not 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mooeena&oldid=887670766

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mooeena#Detransition_Page_Edits Note, this is on my user talk page rather than the article talk page.

Comments:

I'm bringing this here instead of reverting this unproductive editing a third time. This user has a history of denouncing transgender people for "gender ideology" and has been edit warring by adding non-notable puff pieces about individuals who have reversed their gender transition, including a piece that uses an offensive slur in its title and throughout the article. I reverted the edit (as I thought, pretty uncontroversially) and explained why in the edit summary and on my talk page when the user asked for an explanation. They seem to have taken my reluctance to argue with them on my talk page as permission to redo their edits. This user has also been rude to me and does not show a willingness to learn the rules of Wikipedia. Apologies if this is not quite extreme enough for this noticeboard, but I think this would be better handled by a third party. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Begin: Jamie Shupe Comments.

It was explained to Mooeena that they are not entitled to police language on Wikipedia. For example, Mooeena objects to an article with the word tranny. It was explained while it may offend Mooeena, the language is perfectly acceptable in the context and time period from which the news article was authored. Drag queens often call themselves trannies. Further, Mooeena undid not just the supposed offending language, but a number of edits twice. Mooeena's problem lies with me as a person and the fact that the page exists. So Mooeena is essentially vandalizing the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

"The term tranny has been adopted by some drag performers, notably RuPaul, and the gay male community in the United States, but it is considered offensive to most transgender and transsexual people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_queen

As further proof that Mooeena's behavior is malicious, I'll point to the LGBT Firsts page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_or_transgender_firsts_by_year

Note that Mooeena repeatedly used "notability" as a reason to undo the edits on the detransition page but yet the exact same types of entries are on the LGBT Firsts page. My understanding is people who don't qualify for their own page are put into pages of the appropriate category.JamieShupe (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – User:JamieShupe was checkuser blocked by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Merphee reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also involved has been, who I'm pinging as a courtesy. Merphee has made several other reverts at the article, but this is the first 3RR violation I've seen by them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By which I think you mean that Merphee reverted some of my edits. Unfortunately they are proud of edit warring in this instance, admitting that they knew they were edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on this point has been ongoing for some time, such as this discussion from the middle of last year. An RfC is being proposed. The long-standing consensus has been not to include a political orientation description, yet PeterTheFourth and his tag-team mate Onetwothreeip have been repeatedly inserting poorly-sourced material to this effect. This is a clear attempt to subvert wikipolicy to push a personal opinion. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The long standing consensus was that political orientation was included in the infobox until a few months ago when Merphee removed it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but that isn't what we're discussing right now. You and your mate are busily edit-warring while discussion is ongoing. You've been repeatedly told to drop the stick and let wikipolicy take its course. I mean to say, most of your frigging edits on the talk page have been in the RfC discussion so you can hardly claim you're unaware of it. Geez. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Skyring, minor point - that's not an RfC. That's just a normal discussion. Our guide on RfCs is here WP:RFC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I genuinely apologise for reverting back today. It was during this ongoing drawn out discussion and Onetwothreeip and Peter The Fourth were 'taking turns' to re-add the contentious edits to technically avoid the 3 revert rule. I will happily walk away. I thought though that during a discussion you don't go behind everyone's back like these 2 editors did and add edits that were in question and provoke everyone. They also kept posting on my talk page harassing me when I had politely asked them both to stop doing it. And then sure enough Peter The Fourth comes running here and reports me. Wow. I think Gnangarra's, Skyring's and ScottDavis's very wise comments on Talk:The Australian sum the situation up. Merphee (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to self revert your fourth revert? You, uh, didn't give any edit summary as to why you were doing it anyway. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And here you are PeterTheFourth still carrying this on, without any insight into your own behaviour and provocations. No I certainly and obviously do not want to continue on with this conflict with you. I suggested to you and onetwothreeip we use dispute resolution much earlier on which is worth noting. Again all I can do is genuinely apologise to other editors and administrators for my behaviour and any disruption this has caused. Merphee (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to explain that the apology is quite insincere if you choose not to undo what you're apologising for. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way PeterTheFourth this bad faith edit during the discussion on the talk page was the provocation and this one  followed it up. And this was the contentious edit as Skyring just said that we were all talking about. Why did you do that? Merphee (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A minor point? Not an RfC discussion, just regular discussion. Point taken. But as noted, a discussion about an RfC on this very topic, and you decided to edit-war while discussion was ongoing. Yes, you goaded Merphee into breaching 3RR, you and the other guy doing a tag-team act, and harassing him on his talk page, and as soon as he fell into your trap, you sprung it here.
 * The way I see it, you deserve a boomerang because you were edit-warring against consensus, during a discussion on this exact point. And it's not as if the discussion was much more than you saying the same things over and over. That's not the way to write an effective and useful encyclopaedia; that's the way to get editors riled up and distracted, and eventually get admins involved. Don't you all have better things to do than bicker?
 * It's not as if this is a major point anyway. We rely on reliable sources, and your sources for the material you want to insert are very dubious indeed. --Pete (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd to see a filer reporting themself for also edit warring...I'd suggest this is withdrawn before everyone gets a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Full-protected for 12 hours. Since multiple users are edit-warring with each other over something (IMHO) reasonably inconsequential, and no other edits of any significance have been done on the article over the past few days, I think protection is the answer. I have done 12 hours instead of the standard 24 as twelve hours has already passed, I think all the participants (being Australian) are asleep, and I'm not convinced the edit war is over, and will likely be started up again in the morning. I have added to the discussion on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

These are ridiculous accusations made by and. I have never co-ordinated anything with PeterTheFourth, I simply reverted something twice and PeterTheFourth reverted something once. I never asked them to do anything and they never asked me to do anything. Apparently this forced Merphee to revert four times. If an editor finds themselves being forced to break 3RR, why should they be allowed to continue to participate? Furthermore, is there anything that can be done about the baseless claims of co-ordinating to disrupt Wikipedia? Notifying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A glance at the article's edit history shows the same names adding or removing the same material over and over going back weeks, if not months. Over the course of twelve hours I see user 123 making two reverts and user 4 making two reverts. I say you two numbered accounts are tag-teaming, because that's exactly what I see. I'd like a solid commitment from all of you involved in what is usually a slow-motion edit-war to refrain from continuing it at any speed until we can find a consensus. I'm seeing more editors contribute on the talk page, so we may be able to reach an agreement.
 * So far as I can see, those pushing for the paper to have a label of centre-right or similar are not wrong; the problem lies in finding a good enough source and avoids us synthesising a statement that nobody has actually made. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely false and ludicrous accusations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No collusion, eh? I call 'em as I see 'em. The page history is there for all to see, and my statements are easily checked. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to add one thing here. Pete/Skyring's claim above that "The long-standing consensus has been not to include a political orientation description" is completely wrong, as already pointed out by Onetwothreeip. This saga began when, in discussions with Merphhee last July on another Australian political matter, I suggested that his wanting to use The Australian as a source was problematic because of that paper's right wing slant. Non-Australians may find it useful to know that this paper is a Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd publication. I hope that's enough for most to guess at its political orientation. Merphhee's reaction was one of complete surprise that anyone would think The Australian was anything but nicely centrist and balanced. It seemed he had never heard any claims at all that his favourite journal was anything but centrist. How he had not heard them still puzzles me. His reaction was to aggressively argue the point on the matter, and to remove the long-standing part of the article that said the paper was right wing. Shortly after, for reasons of disgust with unrestrained POV pushers and bullying on Wikipedia, I took myself on a sabbatical. Having now returned, I felt it necessary to clarify things a little. I hope my little story is of some help. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it. The consensus was exactly what Pete/Skyring said. It was no claim. I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility, and accusations of bad faith should be reported to ANI. I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse. Merphee (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it.... I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility." Wasn't going to say much more here, but that demanded repeating. Then there's "I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse." This week is the first time I have commented on Wikipedia for maybe six months. HiLo48 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * HiLo, consensus isn't what one editor prefers. It's what happens. We might get a general agreement (perhaps with a couple of diehard outliers), or we might get a status quo emerging where nobody feels changing what has evolved is worth any more effort. The stable version that emerged with this article was one where political orientation was omitted. We are now here on this notice-board because a couple of editors have decided to edit-war in order to change consensus. BRD is Wikipedia's preferred mechanism to develop a new consensus, and it works better if reversion and discussion do not occur simultaneously.


 * Again, the history of the page is on display, and we may examine the various stable versions of this page which evolved. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 2012: No mention of political alignment in infobox or lede. (This reversion by HiLo is instructive.)
 * 2013: No mention of political alignment. This was inserted for a short time in August and reverted with this reference to consensus.
 * 2014: No mention of political alignment.
 * 2015, 2016: In May 2015, Ag6858 adds infobox political alignment (of centre-right). This lasts until the end of 2016, gradually turning into "Right Wing", when it is removed entirely.
 * 2017: A mention of political alignment in the infobox creeps back in March, and is the subject of some dispute. The latter half of the year shows a stable "Centre Right" infobox line.
 * 2018: consensus reached on talk page to remove political alignment from infobox. This lasts until 6 July when "Conservative Right Wing" is claimed. Things really get heated over the Christmas drinks when 123IP changes this to "Right Wing" and Merphee disputes this. Kerry Raymond removes the infobox mention entirely on 29 December.
 * 2019: No mention of political alignment until 24 February, when restored (as centre-right), quoting a discussion on a different board..
 * Since then it's been pretty much open warfare. --Pete (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole point of my comment was to highlight past behaviour of the editor involved, not to discuss content, or consensus. This is obviously not the place to discuss content in particular. And Merphee did remove content he didn't like from The Australian back on 7 July 2018 without seeking consensus. That was where this all began. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is complete crud HiLo48, and Pete once again has masterfully trumped you on this one, with his list of diffs provided below which you have once again ignored. What I don't appreciate HiLo48 as so many others on Wikipedia have noted in the past, is your constant unrelenting lack of civility, your rudeness, accusations of bad faith, distortions, personal attacks on a whole range of other editors over a long period of time. In fact anyone who disagrees with you. And here you are back at other editor's throats again on the attack with your constant belittling and condescension. I could show diffs if you like to prove your rudeness in the last couple of days. I asked you to apologise to Pete but you refused. It has to stop. Merphee (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "That is complete crud HiLo48." Actually, it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The page 'was' protected. Why is the goings on at the talkpage of the article-in-question, being fought out here ? Take it to the Dispute board. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:185.51.8.40 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

This one also probably related: 5.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Anon IP.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

ONE editor has objected to this content on the talk page, User:ModerateMikayla555 (where they made some strange comments) and then all of sudden the anon IPs show up to support them in the edit war.

Comments:

The IP(s) are obvious sock puppet. Somewhat hilariously in that last edit, the anon IP with ... now I guess... six... edits cites "BLP exception to 3RR". They also cite all kinds of Wikipedia policies as if they had been editing for years. Sock puppet. Sock puppet. Sock puppet. Probably not ModerateMikayla555 sock puppet, but somebody's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they're socks, but I can definitively tell you they're not mine. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AndreyVorobyov reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: and IP

Previous version reverted to:

Original addition of text

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:47, March 13, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
 * 2) 23:53, March 13, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
 * 3) 07:45, March 14, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
 * 4) 11:20, March 14, 2019 - 91.193.177.251
 * 5) 11:41, March 14, 2019‎ - 91.193.177.251

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, despite being advised at least twice.

Comments:

Editor attempting to add -- well, SOMETHING -- to the PayPal article, sourced to a forum page. The first three reverts are by the editor's account, and the last two are obviously the same editor logged out, despite their evasive denial. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to discuss an article with user Calton many times. I wrote on his user talk page, but never get a reply, he rejected to discuss an article. Wikipedia is not about a winning, it is a discuss process. Please find his user talk page messages: User_talk:Calton I work here under my name. Indicated IP is not mine. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * – 24 hours. User is edit warring to insert material that was found in a complaint on a web forum by an individual Paypal user. In other words, it doesn't pass the standards of WP:RS. EdJohnston (talk)

User:Carnivourous123 reported by User:Mztourist (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:

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887790159 by Alexbrn (talk) see my talk page.  Restoring Josve05a edition."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887776580 by Zefr (talk).  Warning Zefr to observe factual statements on my talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887757034 by Zefr (talk) Restoring Josve05a edition.  A balanced article is better than a single sided article."
 * 4)  "/* Cancer */"
 * 5)  "/* Cancer */"
 * 1)  "/* Cancer */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Fasting edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Fasting edits */ cmt"
 * 3)   "/* Fasting edits */ ce"
 * 4)   "/* Fasting edits */ r"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Uses in cancer treatment or prevention */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Fasting edits */"


 * Comments:

User is stuck on using animal studies and theories to propose fasting prevents cancer. There is no WP:MEDRS reviews indicating such an effect. User does not engage on the Talk:Fasting page or leave fact-based edit summaries. Zefr (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Campoftheamericas is a chronic edit-warrior, regularly attempting to force their preferred version onto articles with little regard for Wikipedia editing norms. They edit only sporadically, October 2013 being the last flurry of activity when they attempted to force an NPOV tag onto Water fluoridation, a featured article. They collected three separate escalating blocks, each for edit-warring, in the space of a month at that point. Their previous block was in March 2009, not surprisingly for edit-warring. I don't believe Campoftheamericas is a good fit for editing Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Campoftheamericas is a chronic edit-warrior, regularly attempting to force their preferred version onto articles with little regard for Wikipedia editing norms. They edit only sporadically, October 2013 being the last flurry of activity when they attempted to force an NPOV tag onto Water fluoridation, a featured article. They collected three separate escalating blocks, each for edit-warring, in the space of a month at that point. Their previous block was in March 2009, not surprisingly for edit-warring. I don't believe Campoftheamericas is a good fit for editing Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Dogru144 (Result: Fradio71 blocked for a week)
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: --I put the notice of EditWarring on his TalkPage but he removed it.Dogru144 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Earlier notice re edit warring on his page: -which is no longer on his current Talk Page, as he removed the notice.Dogru144 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

−	 Comments: If you take a look at the edits, I perfectly explained why I removed the content. Soon after he started the discussion, he posted a failure to engage notice on my page three minutes after I had already engaged on the talkpage. In his further reverts, he claimed I still hadn't engaged on the talkpage. When I tried resolving it under his warning of alleged "failure to engage", he handed me the edit warring notice without addressing the issue. He never returned to either my nor the page's talkpage, so I handed him an edit warring warning. It became clear he didn't want to negotiate a resolution, he just wanted it his way. He even tried avoiding me entirely here, seeming to imply that his edit has to stay up and that anyone who tries to remove it is bad. He never returned to the talk pages and instead reported me for removing content he had no right to re-add. Dogrul was conflating the scandal into the person involved, and insisted pertinence despite repeatedly pointing out that the item he added was only loosely connected, and was trivial from the person's perspective. I find his attempt to "resolve" the issue extremely shallow since he never actually returned to discuss it--Fradio71 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear-cut violation. Fradio seems to think that being right makes it OK. BTW Dogru seems to believe the same thing--see Fradio's talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:109.145.136.108 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887914165 by Girth Summit (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887914003 by Plandu (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887913938 by Plandu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 887913650 by Girth Summit (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 887913454 by Dennis Bratland (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 887908949 by Dennis Bratland (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 887907868 by Dennis Bratland (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Silencer (firearms). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Corkythehornetfan reported by User:Netoholic (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (for list of links),  (for caption)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - initial revert of caption and external links, and other changes, with misleading/incomplete edit summary
 * 2)  - second revert and false claim of caption exception for US Politician official photos

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Per removal of above warning, Corkythehornetfan believes he only reverted once.

Comments:


 * I wasn’t aware of the 1RR on his page. When you hit the revert button, it doesn’t show that. I have better things to do than to waste my time here. I’ll be done with Bernie’s article for a few days. Corky  05:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Bernie Sanders appears when editing the article and displays the edit restrictions on the article. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the user is making large changes -- undiscussed as far as I can see -- to many U.S. politician articles: John Boozman, Chris Coons, Roger Wicker, Amy Klobuchar, Bob Menendez, Lindsey Graham, etc. --Calton &#124; Talk 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Corkythehornetfan had a very classy response to Calton bringing this up to him. -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m done. You can quit watching my page, stalking me, whatever you are doing. Whatever your reasons are, you are out to get me. If yo had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did. Besides that, I just told Carlton what he told me - I just chose to blatantly say it. You’re all a waste of my time and I have no reason to go any further with you two. Don’t comment on my talk page again. Goodbye! Corky  14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * last I checked, you can go fuck yourselves.
 * What is that even supposed to mean?


 * If yo [sic] had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did.
 * I *did* communicate with you on your talk page asking why you were making wholesale deletions of external links, and *that's* what got me the response I did. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, your rude-ass comment of “I just checked, and Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge. got you the response you did. There’s other ways to say you disagree, but being a dick ain’t one of them. Besides, I’m pretty sure the communication part is about you... maybe you should read a little closer and you’d know that it was meant for Netoholic whose chose to report rather than talk with me first.  Corky  16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it’s funny that the two people ‘reporting’ here have had quite the history of edit-warring... possibly retaliation of others because they’ve been blocked in the past? I’ve never dealt with these two (thankfully) or I would’ve quit this site a long time ago. Corky  17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I think it's funny -- no, actually, I think it's just ridiculous -- that you think "because I said so" as your given rationale for edit-warring was sufficient justification and that lashing out when your edits are challenged is acceptable. --Calton &#124; Talk 00:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122 reported by User:Bless sins (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Article is fast changing, see below for exact edits reverted.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1st revert, reverted this edit in "See also"
 * 2) 2nd revert, reverted the removal of a template
 * 3) 3rd revert, once again removes the template, which had been added back
 * 4) 4th revert, removed links from the "See also" section added in this edit

The above reverts involve a dispute with User:Vice regent. Musicfan122 has also been involved in a dispute with User:Neegzistuoja and made two reverts in relation to that just hours before: The editor has also made other reverts, all within a few hours.
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am trying to put a recentism tag on Christchurch_mosque_shootings as per the discussion to keep down the number of non historically notable platitudes. However this has been reverted by Musicfan122 despite hidden comment tags appealing not to remove due to WP:WNTRMT.  I also note that on their talk page Musicfan122 has reverted my pleas to stop reverting my edits.Mozzie (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Notification posted on User:Musicfan122's talk page Mozzie (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Creditor666 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result:Blocked 2 Weeks )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 887909152 by Tony May (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887840878 by Tony May (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887699181 by Tony May (talk) STOP REMOVING MY F*CKING IMAGES"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also similarly at LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot. Countless warnings & 3 blocks this year for edit-warring, and one last year. David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Already being addressed at user talk:Tony May following a plea at WT:TWP. Any evidence of further warring? Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On checking, Moylsey98 has reverted Tony May after a clear warning, which he would have had notification of. Blocked 2 weeks as this in not the first offence of this nature. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jej1997 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) Initial edit ("shit works, dawg") Alexbrn (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

then:
 * 1)  "A suitable source?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 887890103 by Alexbrn (talk) WebMD is acceptable per WP:MEDRS.  A better source is welcome if you can find it.  See talk page discussion."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 887924024 by Alexbrn (talk): Unreliable per Alexbrn; acceptable per WP:MEDRS, as described on Talk page."
 * 4)  "Revert to revision 887925633 dated 2019-03-15 18:57:22 by Jej1997 using popups


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

See Talk:Restless legs syndrome.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User had been repeatedly trying to add material about orgasm curing RLS.
 * Actually, material about orgasm being a treatment (not a cure) for RLS. The source is WebMD, which WP:MEDRS describes as an "acceptable" source, but Alexbrn seems to be on a personal crusade against. jej1997 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note, has continued edit-warring and is now at 5RR. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. An anonymous IP address user did another revert with the explanation: "no". For all I know, that was Alexbrn.  If another rando shows up and reverts it again without any attempt to justify it, the result will be the same. jej1997 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are signalling your intention to keep edit warring if you disagree with the edit. Anonymous IPs are allowed to edit Wikipedia - in fact their good edits, like the one you reverted, help improve things. Alexbrn (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension. Let me say it again: Any time someone reverts my edit with no explanation, yes, I'll most likely undo it. jej1997 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Fæ reported by User:Cleisthenes2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887678654&oldid=858439046&title=Toby_Young

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887678654&oldid=860830194&title=Toby_Young
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887678654&oldid=883607427&title=Toby_Young
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887678654&oldid=886912927&title=Toby_Young
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=887678654&oldid=851456069&title=Toby_Young

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I'm not very skilled at navigating the administrative sections of this site, so apologies if I've made any procedural errors. I'd also note that I've not been able to find some of the discussions relevant to this complain, so the ones above will have to do. My complaint is that Fæ is being thoroughly unreasonable about what I think is a perfectly reasonable complaint (shared by many others) that the opening paragraph of the article on Toby Young violates the NPOV policy. In brief, I don't think we need to take a stand on whether Young's tweets were 'misogynistic and homophobic' - I think we can leave that to readers to decide. All we need to do is inform readers that he was sacked because his tweets were viewed as such by some. As the editing history will show, I've repeatedly tried to find a compromise position (a position advocated by other users), offering a range of possible versions of the sentence in question, from ones that indicate that some (or even many) people saw the tweets as misogynistic and homophobic, to ones that simply noted that they were controversial. Fæ has repeatedly rejected all of these attempts at compromise out of hand, immediately reverting all of my edits and labelling me a POV warrior on the talk page. (Unfairly, I might add: my purpose is simply to try to restore some neutrality to the piece, not to establish that one view of the question is right or wrong). I am still more than willing to work towards a compromise version of the relevant sentence that would make clear that many people found Young's tweets offensive without Wikipedia taking a stand on one side of the question or the other. I would add in closing that in the several different discussions of this issue that have taken place, Fæ has repeatedly failed to establish a consensus for her hard-line position, and in many cases a clear majority of users was in favour of less strident language, and of a compromise position. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. First, technical matter, you gave us four diffs of your own edits, rather than four diffs of Fae's. Second, no. This is a content dispute. Multiple reliable sources back Fae's version, so whose version is more NPOV is going to be a matter for consensus, not something you win by asking us to block him and not you. Your edit warring is not less bad than Fae's edit warring simply because you offered to compromise - Wikipedia explicitly does not practice false balance or fallacy of moderation, so it's not an inherently unreasonable position to refuse to meet someone halfway. Anyway, no violation, and certainly no worse than your own edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not been correctly notified on my talk page of this complaint, I happened to notice that the Toby Young talk page had been changed. Secondly Arbcom DS apply, this may change the view over whether a slow revert war is allowable. Thirdly the diffs above, as has already been noticed, are cherry picked, ignoring the existing multiple good faith consensus that do the opposite of what Cleisthenes2 would like. Fourthly is a party to this case, as they have reverted Cleisthenes2's blanking and rewriting of "homophobic and misogynistic" several times, their most recent revert being this morning.

The Diffs of the user's reverts above is misleading. 2 of the 4 diffs show no edit made by me, but reverts of Cleistenes2 by others.


 * Evidence of consensus
 * 1) BLPN 11 July 2018 the consensus was to keep "after homophobic and misogynistic Twitter comments were uncovered" in the lede text on the Toby Young article
 * 2) BLPN 31 July 2018 the consensus was to allow Toby Young's self-serving blog (23 July) post in Quillette as a response to the allegations, but in a later section and to keep "homophobic and misogynistic" in the lede
 * 3) Talk:Toby_Young (July 2018) Good faith article talk page discussion, showing a consensus opposite of what Cleithenes2 would prefer
 * 4) Talk:Toby_Young (September 2018) a second good faith talk page consensus, entirely focused on reliable sources, again the opposite of what Cleithenes2 would prefer


 * User notices and warnings
 * 1) 23 September 2018 3RR warning for Cleisthenes2 on the Toby Young article by Nomoskedasticity
 * 2) 9 March 2019: Arbcom DS alert on Cleisthenes2's talk page diff

For the record, here is a more complete history of Cleisthenes2's edits to the Toby Young article, every time removing "homophobic and misogynistic" or making it look like hearsay:
 * Further counter evidence
 * 2019-03-17 05:07 diff
 * 2019-03-09 05:36 Restored NPOV in line with balance of opinion in community
 * 2019-03-09 01:44 Removed politically one-sided language in the lede to restore NPOV
 * 2018-09-23 10:15 Undid revision 860830194 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)
 * 2018-09-23 10:10 Restoring neutrality in line with consensus on the talk page
 * 2018-09-23 09:50 Restored some neutrality to last sentence of the opening paragraph
 * 2018-08-16 04:44 Restored neutrality to opening para in accordance with majority view reached on BLPs page
 * 2018-08-04 05:49 Restored reference to Quillette piece
 * 2018-07-31 03:49 Restored link to Young statement&#039;s on accusations against him
 * 2018-07-27 02:25 Added reference to Young&#039;s denial that his tweets were misogynistic etc.
 * 2018-07-22 10:32 diff
 * 2018-07-22 07:09 Undid revision 851429026 by Fae (talk) Sorry, I don&#039;t see where consensus was established. All I can see are your arguments (which I have responded to). Please avoid edit-warring without engaging in dialogue.
 * 2018-07-22 06:09 re-wrote last sentence of first para to make it politically neutral

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Urgal reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you dont have the right to delete extra information. you dont own this site"
 * 2)  "see Talk page, nobody presented an argument on why this shouldnt be included"
 * 3)  "Unless somebody gives me a reason why this information is unnecessary and has to be removed I will keep re-adding it"
 * 4)  "Please give a plausible reason why you consider this information redundant."
 * 5)  "necessary"

Please also note similar edits on Sex assignment

18:32, 14 February 2019
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

More information forthcoming; Twinkle would not load all relevant diffs report completed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please also see.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Urgal is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E reported by User:Tymon.r (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888203532&oldid=888198402
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888198202&oldid=888198018
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888197764&oldid=888197588
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888197480&oldid=888197167
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888197027&oldid=888196958
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888196834&oldid=888196600
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellator_MMA_in_2016&diff=888196326&oldid=888195540
 * 8) and many more...
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Page_(fighter)&diff=888202824&oldid=888202490
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Page_(fighter)&diff=888202092&oldid=888201853
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Page_(fighter)&diff=888201443&oldid=888201213
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Page_(fighter)&diff=888200581&oldid=888199702
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Page_(fighter)&diff=888199374&oldid=888199247
 * 6) and many more...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved.

Comments:

Tymon. r  Do you have any questions?  16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:49.146.41.187 reported by User:Tymon.r (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The phrase "per the normal rules of English" is from WP:MOS and that same sentence has no mention of usage in the parentheses of an MMA Record. The phrase "do not capitalize the text within parentheses" is from WP:MMA and specifically governs usage in the parentheses of an MMA Record."
 * 2)  "The general MOS applies to general rules of construing a sentence. The WP:MMA states do not capitalize the text within parentheses in the Method column. Notice how this edit capitalizes Estima in the body paragraph but the same word is not in the record box for formatting purposes. Also note how words like "Decision" are capitalized and no period is used at the end of clause since it is not a sentence but a table."
 * 3)  "WP:MMA says lowercase in parentheses for MMA Record table, there is no qualification that excludes proper nouns."
 * 4)  "You already read WP:MMA and you already have an example of it on a page-protected article. Format is the issue not capitalization or grammar."
 * 5)  "MMA Record table is the exception; hence its own subheading. Proper nouns in body paragraph are fine but the MMA Record table are lowercase. As will be observed on this page until a credentialed users have consensus to decide a change in guidelines. Since the veteran users on the Jon Jones article has prioritized format. The other non-protected page will naturally follow its style."
 * 6)  "The Jon Jones page is specifically mentioned because it is page protected and only allowed to be edited by Autoconfirmed and Registered users. The same users that made the guidelines for WP:MMA."
 * 7)  "Already showed evidence of proper formatting in other articles like Jon Jones. Formatting is the priority."
 * 8)  "Not in the parentheses of the MMA Record table as required by WP:MMA; formatting is prioritized"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 888196017 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 888195798 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 888195539 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 888195377 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 888195245 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 888195058 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 888194802 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 888194432 by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk)"


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


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

I semi-protected the page to stop the edit warring between the two IPs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:NewsYouCanUse2018 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added reference"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888222240 by Praxidicae (talk) The source is a newspaper of investigative journalists,the executive director's own linkedin claims, and IRS forms 990. All verifiable."
 * 3)  "/* Criticism */ Investigations describing the religious basis of Fight The New Drug."
 * 4)  "/* Criticism */ Add missing title to reference"
 * 5)  "/* Criticism */ Add title to second reference"
 * 6)  "Added IRS citations for salary information of executives"
 * 7)  "add executive director summary"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 888218055 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a verified news source, is not SPAM, and Praxidicae appears to be a bad actor"
 * 9)  "/* Criticism */ news article"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888218055 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a verified news source, is not SPAM, and Praxidicae appears to be a bad actor"
 * 2)  "/* Criticism */ news article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See also talk page and discussion on user's talk page, given ample warning, discussion and they've continued to re-add the same contested content. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Zero contested content was re-added. One brand new reference, unrelated to the Talk, was added. User is attempting to silence critics. User further claims multiple national news sources are "unreliable" in effort to stifle critique. NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You really need a crash course in WP:NPA. A school paper is not a national news outlet and I already stated that I think that article needs balance - in fact I'm not even sure it's notable, but POV pushing on either side is not acceptable and accusing other editors of ulterior motives is an egregious personal attack. I've literally never heard of this organization until today. Praxidicae (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The school newspaper, which included screenshots of primary documentation and was cited with two other national news outlets,provides uncontested descriptions of Fight the New Drug structure and function that readers should find useful in understanding Fight the New Drug. NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked this over and while it certainly is edit warring, I do not find that 3RR was actually violated., please consider this a final warning on the subject of edit warring, and follow bold,revert,discuss in the future. It's important as a new user that you understand that whether you are right or wrong from an editorial standpoint here is irelevant, edit warring is not permitted and can and will lead to you being blocked, so it's better to discuss than to just keep reverting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:16stumps reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888237758 by MrX Adding context to correct a public misconception is not cherry-picking. It serves the public interest, which is the stated purpose of Wikipedia.  Editors like you are the reason people don't trust it as a reliable source of information. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888234216 by Grayfell Talk not required for provably factual statements via citation for the purpose of needed context.. (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888083514 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Personal opinion charge is baseless. A reading of the official transcript confirms Trump's repudiation of the hate groups involved and clarifies his "fine people" reference.  LA Times (the source cited) is considered a reliable news agency."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Deletion of over 50% of content for post without rationale.


 * In addition, semi-protection would probably be useful.This isn't the only new editor doing this. I won't take action since I've reverted, and hadn't realized the 1RR..  Acroterion   (talk)   21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC) '''  Acroterion


 * I've not semiprotected the page because there's only one other editor who made one similar edit, but if this changes I will do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jesse Coffey reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888276300 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
 * 2)  "The available evidence suggests that HT0001 was Babar and Father Christmas, first issued in 1986."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."
 * 1)  "The available evidence suggests that HT0001 was Babar and Father Christmas, first issued in 1986."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888272368 by IanDBeacon (talk) There is no evidence Hi-Tops released anything before 1986."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hi-Tops Video. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User's editing habits are also similar to WP:LTA/NS, minus the edit summary. He is claiming Hi-Tops Video didn't release anything prior to 1986, yet they actually did. IanDBeacon (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . I'm hesitant to call this Nate Speed without the characteristic edit summaries, but there's simply too much other behavioral evidence here to discount it.  He can explain the situation in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Natureium reported by User:NewsYouCanUse2018 (Result: No violation)
Warning was provided.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:58,  -716‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ non-RS
 * 2) 19:55,  -121‎  Talk:Fight the New Drug ‎ rmv wikiprojects that are a stretch
 * 3) 19:52,  -957‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: How is someone wearing a T-shirt important for an encyclopedic article?
 * 4) 19:50,  -179‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ again, instagram isn't a source
 * 5) 19:49,  -4,411‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Criticism: this whole section focuses on one set of opinion editorials
 * 6) 19:47,  -936‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: Not related to the organization, and instagram isn't a source
 * 7) 19:45,  -1,599‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ not relevant for the lead.
 * 8) 19:45, {{diff2|17 March 2019) -392‎  Fight the New Drug ‎ →‎Support: that's not related to the organization and the source doesn't mention it at all


 * {{u|NewsYouCanUse2018}}, FYI, you have to tell someone when you report them here, not leave a warning that you will report them to AIV. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I warned on your talk, then you did it again anyway. You don't get two warnings on vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any changes since you left a message on my talk page... Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top|again, this board is for discussing edit warring. What the content being warred over is is basically irrelevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)}}
 * {{AN3|novioexplain}} Natureium made a serious of edits correcting gross deficiencies in the sourcing of the article, these are not 3RR relevant reverts. Your behaviour, {{u|NewsYouCanUse2018}} is disruptive. If you don't stop, I'm blocking you. Nick (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Natureium removed scientific sources, including peer-reviewed in edits. Fight the New Drug is widely known fraud by scientists (they have no scientists and describe excluding any study inconsistent with their view in the sources that were provided). Wiki now misrepresents Fight the New Drug as a scientific resource with no evidence. Natureium removed >50% of the article content without justification.NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this discussion to fewer pages? I've already responded to you on my talk page and the article talk page. Natureium (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

User:The Dvornjaga reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Islam is not mentioned in the lyrics"
 * 2)  "they is nothing anti-muslim in lyrics"
 * 3)  "deleting tautology, clarification of information"
 * 1)  "deleting tautology, clarification of information"
 * 1)  "deleting tautology, clarification of information"
 * 1)  "deleting tautology, clarification of information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned for edit warring after three reverts. They performed three additional reverts after the warning. POV pushing.

The other party in this dispute has also performed many contentious reverts, but they told me on talk that they would stop (after a warning). w umbolo  ^^^  18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User has asserted they will stop edit warring, and has done. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:86.191.95.230 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:86.191.95.230. (TW)"
 * 2)   "per WP:UP and providing another warning about edit-warring"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "per WP:UP and providing another warning about edit-warring"


 * Comments:

Temporary semi-protect ought to fix the problem. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:3RRNO, removing comments in your own user space does not count as edit warring. Filer has been warned. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Npsaltos62 reported by User:Bradv (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Patrick Moore (consultant). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Greenpeace. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also edit warring at Patrick Moore (consultant). No posts to either talk page. Bradv 🍁  15:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Npsaltos62 has committed to seek sources and consensus for their edits here. It would have been nice if that commitment had been made before the 3RR report, but this can likely be closed without further action. Bradv 🍁  16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The comments at Patrick Moore's article were utterly inappropriate and I want a complete assurance this will never happen again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Meow reported by User:Supportstorm (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 07:07, March 17, 2019‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:53, March 17, 2019
 * 2) 18:03, March 17, 2019
 * 3) 02:24, March 18, 2019

This user replaced a photo I originally put on the article three hours later with a duplicate. Such files are subject to speedy deletion on the commons. Also claims I was "lying" and that my reasoning for removing the duplicate was "nonsense" and in "bad faith". This is not the only instance of this behavior occurring between this user and others who contribute images to article of the same interest, and I can provide evidence if requested. Supportstorm (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How can a much larger image with much more details be considered as a duplicate? I should have reported you earlier for your insults. 🐱💬 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Update, this user overrode my file after the duplicate was deleted. I'm really just annoyed by this whole thing. Meow you need to stop this elitism. I've never insulted you once. There was literally no issue with quality of the image since I ran it through specialized software that uses the same algorithm that NASA uses to create a lossless image, fixed shape as recommend by you here, and saved to the highest quality allowed using jpg compression. Admins, this is a common frustration I encounter with this user when uploading current tropical cyclone images. Supportstorm (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is incredibly silly. First, technical matter, you provided links to revisions. Provide links to diffs next time. Second, Meow's image is obviously not a duplicate, so stop saying it is. It's not scaled down either. If you can't even get right what you're edit warring over, I am definitely not inclined to take any administrative action. And I'm certainly not inclined to give you any credit simply because you uploaded first. If there is some regular pattern of bad behavior going on, you'll need to gather diffs to demonstrate that and present it at WP:ANI. But if you want to continue arguing over this bike shed, go try some dispute resolution. And : just as an FYI, you can always use Keep local if you need to, if commons admins are deleting images for reasons that don't actually apply. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. I believe I fixed the diff misunderstanding, sorry about not having that in order this time around. The focus of the edits was around trivial differences in the image and I agree it was, however I politely disagree with your diagnoses. The images were similar enough to be duplicates and to say upload order doesn't matter in this instance is unfair. I still respect your decision regardless. I'll take your advice and move this to ANI, once I gather diffs, since attempts at dispute resolution in the past didn't come across effectively with Meow, hence why bringing the issue here was considered insulting to her. Supportstorm (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Theoneandonlyjjj reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rather have a 2010s picture than a 2000s picture, so no"
 * 2)  "Dont change the 2011 picture."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "merge sections + comment/question"
 * 2)   "/* Photo edit war */ response"


 * Comments:

Warnings given in edit summary's and on talk page. User not contributing relevantly to discussion at the time of this request. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – By User:Floquenbeam for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BobNesh reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888250373 by FloridaArmy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Here on English Wikipedia, so-called Radio Liberty is not considered reliable source. Sorry and thank you for understanding."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888207753 by Ktrimi991 (talk) Source doesn't say that phrase originate in Serbia. Provide source or accept revision."
 * 4)  "Phrase didn't originate from Serbia!"
 * 1)  "Phrase didn't originate from Serbia!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

BobNesh has removed the word "Serbia" as the place of origin of the song several times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Song originated in Bosnia & Herzegovina, not Serbia. Plain and simple. Period. Phrase "Remove Kebab" also didn't originate in Serbia. It is Internet meme and English language phrase quite unknown in Serbia. BobNesh (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now. There appear to be issues with quality of sourcing for this article. But if reverts continue without prior agremeent on the talk page some admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BobNesh reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888250373 by FloridaArmy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Here on English Wikipedia, so-called Radio Liberty is not considered reliable source. Sorry and thank you for understanding."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888207753 by Ktrimi991 (talk) Source doesn't say that phrase originate in Serbia. Provide source or accept revision."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning ignored. Has been blocked before. I'm filing a report mere hours after my last report on another user on the same article, but it's necessary because a WP:RPP request was denied. w umbolo  ^^^  23:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may hate the fact that song and phrase don't have origin in Serbia, but that still remains a fact. Song is from Bosnia & Herzegovina and the phrase is from English language Internet community. You and your friends should stop with obvious anti-Serb bias and with disruptive editing. Thanks. BobNesh (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note the page does not say that the song originated in Serbia, but with Serb forces, specifically those in Bosnia -- which is indisputably true.--Calthinus (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now, per a prior report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:IndianBio, User:Begoon, User:Itsbydesign reported by User:2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Link 1

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is already a discussion raised in Talk:Sticky_%26_Sweet_Tour. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This is truly a candidate for WP:LAME. For the past week, a consistent edit war has taken place between IndianBio and Itsbydesign (with Begoon recently joining in) The is literally over an image and it doesn't make any sense from the outside looking in. On 3/7/2019, Itsbydesign uploaded a poster image that aligns with the tour title. 5 hours later, it was reverted by IndianBio for no reason beyond no liking the image (although I believe its more geared to WP:OWN. IndianBio then follows this with reverted every single edit made by Itsbydesign. Of course, Itsbydesign comes in few days later and reverts those edits. While he/she cites reasons for changing the image(s), IndianBio still reverts the edits. Begoon comes in and add fuel to the flames by blindly reverting edits with zero explanation. This is obviously something that is going to continue regardless of who says what. This is 3 toddlers throwing a hissy fit for control. An admin needs to step in, make a decision and make sure all 3 adhere.2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As of writing this report, IndianBio has gone through some again to revert edits made to the page and all edits made by Itsbydesign in the past 24 hours.2601:280:C300:7A0:D0EB:CD77:6488:8A3 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't try to act like you are a different person altogether . — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How many bets that the IP is actually Itsbydesign? The user has been reverted number of times by me,, for continuously edit warring across articles by uploading images, moving article page without WP:RM. Please see the 's talk page which is littered by numerous warnings over image related vandalism. Funny thing, lets consider the article Drowned World Tour. uploaded, got reverted by Chrishm21, then reverted again. Not only that, keeps on moving pages without first going through WP:RM or gaining consensus. That's where the reversion comes. The user was already warned and asked to discuss the image uploads and moves, but failed to do so and resorted to EW. Oh and I am willing to bait that the IP is a WP:DUCK. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b>  [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To tbe reviewing admin, please note that not only but I can also see that another IP was used to disrupt further, . This looks to be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b>  [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Every edit I made, to several articles was explained in the edit summary: 'picture does not exist', which at the time they did not. The images were subsequently uploaded and my edits were reverted. -- Begoon 12:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am tending to agree with on the WP:DUCK theory. Given the recent edit history, and continued edit-warring by Itsbydesign is glaring. There seems to be an underlying issue of WP:OWN on that users behalf. Their repeated page moves, despite WP:BRD, seem to be their own attempt of owning the edits. Also, a quick online search proves that both anonymous editors (as pointed out by Indianbio) belong to the same location and provider.   livelikemusic    talk!  13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe in following policy to the letter. All of my edits are justified and explained either with a source I included or referencing a source already within the text of the article. This "debate" is over poster art, which fails the guidelines for non-copyrighted event images. Cropping out any aspect of a non-free image is not allowed. Same goes with article titles. I always reference the policy and provided a source when I edit the article. If I feel my edits are being blindly reverted for negative reasons (which is how I feel in this situation), I will defend my edits until other sources or sound reasoning is brought to my attention. Saying things like: "It's always been this way", "This is what 'we' agreed upon", is not hepful to the conversation and shows more guise of ownership than any edit I've made. This all over images...non-free images. I didn't know a roundtable discussion was needed over which non-free image was better than others. Again, I stand by all my edits and I am than happy to engage in a conversation but I will not engage in a one sided talk with a "stan". I am very open to others editing articles but the edit has be be justified, verifiable and within policy.Itsbydesign (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You kept on edit warring across multiple articles. If a change is needed its your onus to discuss when you are being reverted by multiple users across the encyclopedia. Calling other users as "stan" and all is personal attack. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you did the same. Do not act all high and mighty now that you're being scolded. As discussed on the talk page, you have already shown that you do not want to have a conversation on this matter. I will not waste my time on a one-sided conversation. If you want to have a civil conversation down the line, I will be happy to engage. But, I do not feel you want to, in this matter. So, I chose to turn the other cheek and move on.Itsbydesign (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No admin action, but general concern. Unclear how convinced we should be by a list of seven reverts by four different people. And by the submission of an edit warring report by a dynamic IP who joins in the reverting but doesn't appear to use any talk pages for discussion. There is an underlying problem here, with the page moves and the image changes, and if it continues without waiting for consensus some admin action appears likely. The next person who changes any of these images (without prior consensus) will be in the hot seat. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DanielMNavarro reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

IP 152.250.98.166 (Result: Malformed)
User keeps making non NPOV encyclopedic edits after being reverted and warned. Keeps edit warring and seems to ignore messages/warnings from other users. Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BLDM reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888589988 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) There is a sourced court filing. The article states this fact. No assertions are made."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888589451 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The ref is not used "to support assertions""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888588940 by TisiphoneFury (talk) A document anonymously uploaded to scribd is not a reliable source. Where did you even find that? (Further evidence of direct COI?)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 888526948 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 888526475 by 172.58.40.60 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 888440413 by 172.58.41.167 (talk) Please move this discussion to the talk page - stop edit warring. You clearly have a COI, please declare it."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888440413 by 172.58.41.167 (talk) Please move this discussion to the talk page - stop edit warring. You clearly have a COI, please declare it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Tarah Wheeler */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Tarah Wheeler */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Tarah Wheeler. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* BLP Discretionary Sanctions alert */ new section"
 * 5)   "/* Please reveal your conflict of interest regarding Tarah Wheeler */"


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


 * Comments:

User is reverting poorly-sourced negative information into the biography of a living person, has blanked warnings and refuses to comply with clear policy mandates relating to claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the proper way to source the official court documents when they can't be directly linked? BLDM (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, unless there's a reliable secondary source reporting on this lawsuit, it cannot be included, period, end of sentence. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, as I posted on your talk page (which you just blanked), Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That's it. End of story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the edit is a reference to a purported lawsuit against the article subject, supported only by a press release by the law firm which filed the lawsuit and a link to the lawsuit itself. This is clearly insufficient sourcing per WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY; absent any reliable secondary source discussing the issue, it does not belong in Wheeler's biography. BLDM has not responded to queries, but appears to reject this basic foundational policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Saturnpilot reported by User:Markvs88 (Result: Warned)
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: User_talk:Saturnpilot and here User_talk:Markvs88, where Saturnpilot admits he's re-adding it "because he knows people so it's true." The editor did try to provide a blog as a source, which was irrelevant as it's non-authoritative.

Comments:

In good faith I let this go on for way more than 3RR, but now the user is no longer responds to discussion on these edits. Markvs88 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a note here to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Saturnpilot is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Bradley International Airport without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Nochorus reported by User:Pebblefire (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22:04, 19 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 888466240 by Pebblefire (talk) Per consensus, the drop-down box is for Columbia schools only on Columbia's article. However, all schools incl. affiliates are still present in the article and also have their own wiki pages.)
 * 2)   19:54, 18 March 2019‎. (Undid revision 887874819 by Pebblefire (talk) Restoring edit to revision 883475882)
 * 3)  23:13, 14 February 2019‎. (Undid revision 883285373 by ABCDE22 (talk) years of discussions on this topic already exist on the talk page and its archives, and the consensus is to use Columbia's official statement which can also be found here (columbia.edu/content/academics) ["three undergraduate schools"]. All schools and affiliates [20 total] are already described in the paragraphs.)

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

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

Comments: Consistent edit reverts, multiple unsigned comments on Talk page, not reaching an appropriate consensus (in fact, lied about reaching consensus when in fact, another Talk section had already addressed this, which he commented on in the past so he was well aware of its existence, then commenting on a new Talk section to attempt to reach consensus a year later with new users), arguments with administrators, failure to provide reasonable and reliable primary evidence (e.g. documents, websites, etc.) when in fact other users and administrators have already done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebblefire (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . Pebblefire blocked one week for disruptive editing. Nochorus indefinitely blocked for socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:Jahmalm (Result: Both editors blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: Multi-Edit-War by a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday Jahmalm (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism". No talk page posts by either editor. If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer. Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:109.145.136.108 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888703266 by Girth Summit (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 888703214 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888703080 by Girth Summit (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 888702759 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 887914803 by Girth Summit (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Silencer (firearms). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Silencer (firearms). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not responding to attempts to get them to follow WP:BRD, not using edit summaries. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor has taken an aggressive style against me and other editors. They have previously been warned about this by an administrator ([]). They have failed to engage in talk on the latest point which is to insist on the inclusion of the word "false" - even though this is not supported by the wider evidence (which has been repeatedly removed, and is bad grammar - violating the 3RR to do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If I had to pick which one of you had been the least civil in the dispute, it would be you, Contaldo. Play nice. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hang on - here there is an editor who repeatedly insults a number of other editors and an administrator, who fails to engage constructively in discussions on the talk page, removes sourced material with no explanation, rejects any attempts at compromise, and is determined to push a non-neutral agenda. I am sure you are right that the confusingly names three-revert rule requires four reverts. But to then rap me over the knuckles for being uncivil is somewhat disappointing. Why do I bother I ask myself. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Woodensuperman reported by User:Nowak Kowalski (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886174812 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please see WP:BRD, and also discuss on talk page."
 * 4)  "He is not a member of the band, and does not work exclusively for them, so he does not belong here any more than he would at Template:Ross Macdonald. See WP:BRD and discuss on talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 885685464 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Reverted edits by 86.186.70.231 (talk) to last version by Woodensuperman"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885685464 by 86.186.70.231 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by 86.186.70.231 (talk) to last version by Woodensuperman"


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


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


 * Comments:

Long-term persistent edit warring — removal of links against consensus. User removed warning from their talk page. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where and when was this consensus reached?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Entry was added by IP with this diff, and I had a general cleanup with this diff clearing out all sorts of inappropriate content, including the link in question.  IP then got incredibly hostile with this diff and this diff, and refused to enter into WP:BRD discussions, with this entry on the talk page when it was suggested it was taken there.  The template was then protected, with the above user adding it back in the minute it was unprotected, and slapping me with a edit war template without any attempt to discuss first at the template talk page.  Per WP:BRD disputed additions should be discussed.  -- wooden  superman  09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Woodensuperman, you are constantly removing James Marsh (artist) from this template, as the six diffs provided above will attest. You even advised the IP to use talk back on March 4. Have you ever used the talk page yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, per WP:BRD the onus is on the person making the controversial edit (in this case the addition of a cover artist, see this edit) to instigate the discussion. When this was suggested to the IP, this was the response, not to mention the two previous "fuck you"s from the edit summary, so they clearly did not want to discuss.  The template was protected for this reason, to stop the IP continually adding without discussion.  I would also like to address the disingenuous nomination here.  There has not been "long-term persistent edit warring",  neither has there been "removal of links against consensus".  This is a recent addition, made without consensus.  However, I have now started a discussion on the talk page, and would suggest that the entry is not re-added until a case for inclusion has been made and consensus has been reached.  -- wooden  superman  14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since User:Woodensuperman has now started a talk page discussion. The BRD defence gets a bit thin after six reverts. The IP doesn't strengthen their case by saying 'fuck' in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:198.232.48.20 reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Open a talk section if you disagree. Charles Ponzi has confidence trickster as his occupation.  El Chapo has leader of the Sinaloa cartel listed as his occupation.  [Freeway Rick Ross]] has drug trafficker listed as his occupation.  Frank Lucas has smuggler listed as an occupation.  [Jerry Talbot]] has confidence man as an occupation.   This edit is in compliance with all WP rules."
 * 2)  "Added clarifying information, consistent with general practice (see bio of Charles Ponzi) and ciatation if source."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 888853752 by Bradv (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 888852682 by Bradv (talk, multiple citations to alleged fraud throughout article. Alleged is not defamatory, when criminal charges are pending. Not an entrepreneur if on company is a fraud scam)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 888851000 by Natureium (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of defamatory content on Elizabeth Holmes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Discussion with IP on my talk page, warnings by others on their talk page. Natureium (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oringal edit was reversed for being “defamatory”. This is incorrect, the edit isn’t defamatory, it’s true and not editorialized or biased. The subject of the LPB is accused of making millions because she engaged in fraud.

The edit was then reversed for not being sourced. It’s not customary to add a source to occupation if the occupation is sourced in the article. Nevertheless I add a source.

The edit was the reversed for “absolutely not”. Another edit in violation of rules.

The next edit was reversed because “alleged fraudster” isn’t an occupation. I cited numerous articles where the person’s occupation is an illegal activity, including famous fraudsters. The edit is consistent with Wikipedia rules, other articles, is true, and is sourced.

Fake internet police want to reverse it because they want to increase their edit counts and get a merit badge.198.232.48.20 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to increase my edit count I would edit this page 3 times. I wouldn't mind a merit badge though. Regardless, IP blocked by . Natureium (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.36.169 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early career */Wordy. Short and simple."
 * 2)  "Fact"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy */Common subheading name of Wikipedia"
 * 4)  "Editorializing"
 * 5)  "/* Notable Committee member posts */More precise and specific"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 888614410 by KH-1 (talk) Which wiki policy? Your own? Revert to good in good faith."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 888614018 by KH-1 (talk) what reasons?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888614018 by KH-1 (talk) what reasons?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (cam) (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Edzard Ernst. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* March 2019 */ note about talk page"


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


 * Comments:

The IP is refusing to engage in discussion, appears to be making POV (and largely ungrammatical) edits, and is way beyond 3RR. I've reverted three times on this page already, so will not go further, but this disruption should be stopped. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months due to IP-hopping edit warrior who doesn't use the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Thomasrussell reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 889003608 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 889003143 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 889002793 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 4)  "user keeps editing with agenda, may be Alite or someone hired for Alite. The changes are unsubstantiated, non referenced except by Alite himself. User is using Wikipedia as PR for Alite."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 888991051 by Resnjari (talk) Not sure why his Albanian heritage has to do with you wiping out everything. Please dont do that again."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 888991051 by Resnjari (talk) Not sure why his Albanian heritage has to do with you wiping out everything. Please dont do that again."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Thomasrussell (talk) to last revision by Resnjari (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User refuses to discuss on article talk page, and has violated 3RR. War was between him and User Resnjari, I attempted to push him to the talk page, but he didn't. Jeb3  Talk at me here  20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont know how to use the talk page, I've tried. The comments being amended are non referenced or only referenced by the subject himself. Everything I've listed is substantiated and referenved by journalist not Alite himself. Again Im not opposed to talking on the talk page, I just cant figure out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also asked the editor to use the talkpage in my second revert . I did not touch the page thereafter and waited for the editor to respond in the talkpage. Instead as @Jebcubed shows above with the examples of diffs, @Thomasrussell continued edit warring.Resnjari (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Thomasrussell, you are risking a block for edit warring. You might avoid this if you will agree to stop changing this article until agreement is reached on Talk:John Alite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thomasrussell, you can edit the article talk page just like Wikipedia articles. There is already a discussion "Source in the current article" with a link "edit" right next to the section heading. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston Thank you for explaining the talk page; Ill follow that moving forward. I have to ask, why is that the content that's being questions is not a factor and I'm the one being threatened with banning? I can make a strong argument that what I'm submitting is far more accurate and substantiated. If I can't make changes to what I know to be truthful vs not and can back it up with references, then what exactly should I be doing to avoid a ban- should I not make the corrections? or is there an official process I should follow to submit changes and hope that they get published? Either way I'll use the talk page moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasrussell (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Thomasrussell is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the talk page. While I haven't studied the article in detail, three things are evident. First. the article is a WP:BLP, second, http://johnalitefacts.com appears self-published and doesn't qualify as a WP:Reliable source for Wikipedia, and third, Thomasrussell has reverted seven times, which is more than anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Debi Prasad Misra reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Help:IPA/Sanskrit."
 * 2)   "/* Help:IPA/Sanskrit */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The user has been warring over the page's content for the past week without any attempt to participate in the existing discussion or even explain their intention through edit-summaries. And that is not the only page they have been edit-warring at (another target). See also the numerous warnings/suggestions on the user's talkpage, which they have not responded to. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * by admin . Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:69.119.170.192 reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Blocked for a week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 889014325 by Jebcubed (talk) Just how many accounts are you going to keep on hopping? You have already been warned twice."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 889013784 by Icewhiz (talk) Restoring good faith edit. You don't decide what the consensus is."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 889011739 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop edit warring, you have already been warned once on your talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 889011327 by Jebcubed (talk) Stop account hopping. Restoring general consensue per WP:BD"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 889010852 by Icewhiz (talk) How is it relevant and what is clearly cited? The source is the definition of antisemitism which has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Please take your concerns to the talk page rather than blatantly edit warring."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has not built consensus, and continues to revert anyways Jeb3  Talk at me here  21:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Was about to report them as well. There is a discussion in the TP - the IP vs. everyone else - the IP is trying to remove the subject's (dead, not BLP) well documented antisemitism that is STABLE in the article. Note thee is long term edit warring here by IPs, and this particular IP has been blocked recently for block evasion. I gave the IP a 3RR warning here (when they were at 3 or 4 reverts) - they responded by warning me (I reverted them twice + engaged on the talk oage). The IP is currently at 6 reverts, and is claiming other users are vandals or socks. Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you lying? It is YOU who is removing information and attempting to replace it with a dead source, a source that links to nowhere and has absolutely nothing to do with the article being talked about in the first place. The source that that was removed was a dead link linking to a book about the definition of antisemitism. The topic is of Roman Dmowski, not the definition of antisemitism. You keep reverting to vandalized edits and your own point of view. It is not "IP" vs. "everyone else". Everyone else does not agree with your viewpoint, only you, Jebcubed, and TU-nor do. The majority of the users, as evident by the edit history were against your edit which removed content. Also, you must have me confused for someone else, I have never been blocked by anyone. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note IP is currently at 3RR on this page - AN/EW - blanking out this report.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jebcubed is participating in the exact same thing he is accusing me of doing. Also, Icewhiz is engaging in similar matter. Check out the history of the page, the "edit war" started when Jeb reverted the edit back to a vandalized edit (here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Dmowski&oldid=888706662). I reverted it back to it's originality. He deliberately removed information regarding Pilsudksi's vision of Prometheism, restored a dead source that was removed by a previous user, and then Icewhiz came in and began reverting back to the edits Jeb made, leading to speculation that they might be working together. They then accuse me of edit warring, despite the fact it is them who keep on restoring the vandalized edit that removed information in the first place. Also, Jeb is at 3RR, yet Icewhiz has the audacity to only accuse me when it was him who edit warred in the first place. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note diff alleging I am "account hopping". Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No allegations, just speculation. You were awfully quick to revert back to his edit after all and frequently like to restore edits regarding his point-of-view... -69.119.170.192 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week. The 69.x IP is pretty obviously the same as the 174.x IP that previously edited the article. Any editor may revert the latest edit without being accused of 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, certainly the same as IP 174.225.x, and they are also the same as IP6 2601:1001:x currently long-time range blocked in two ranges here and here. --T*U (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:111.220.164.171 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User has been blocked for edit warring in the near-past, and has admitted to being the same muttering idiot as that Melbourne IP. Given this multi-day violation of WP:TPG (even reverting an archival bot) and the previous violation, I recommend a range-block of both their New South Wales and Victoria addresses for no less than 8 months. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I'm not a muttering idiot, intentional policy violator and I'll never be in NSW. Also, IPs change at least a few times in 8 months and I've never been assigned to an IP then on a block or already off an even earlier one so why are you thinking of a rangebock for 8 months?. Besides, you need diffs in a report at this venues. 111.220.164.171 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually both IPs from Melbourne, none are in NSW.111.220.164.171 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked Oshwah on why those things were spam but no replies yet.FYI111.220.164.171 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This report is actually malformed, but the disruption by the IP is fairly obvious, so I've blocked the IP for one week. The unspecified long-term range blocks are not remotely warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Fcbjuvenil and User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Matthew hk (Result: Blocked 36 hours.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * For today (23/24 March depends on local time) edit war : Special:Diff/888820800
 * for bigger picture (1 March) Special:Diff/885552316
 * For even bigger picture, the wording was existed in year 2014 and Walter did not against it Special:Diff/621517408, Special:Diff/629467180

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Walter's revert
 * 1) Special:Diff/889122867
 * 2) Special:Diff/889170571
 * 3) Special:Diff/889171464

Fcbjuvenil's revert (after the today initial re-insert)
 * 1) Special:Diff/889169676
 * 2) Special:Diff/889171157
 * 3) Special:Diff/889173695

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:Diff/889171529 (warning to Fcbjuvenil)
 * Special:Diff/889173912 (warning to Walter)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * None of them attempted to. A Rfc was opened by me at Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen

Teleported from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Act of against the world by Walter, claiming no consensus. However, by page history record, in 2014, the wording "Spanish club" in the lede already existed and he did not against it, also no documentation of his "change him mind" or the real consensus in Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen. It was somehow discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (see the archived thread), but at the article, the wording was re-inserted by two admins and, with Walter and a mystery IP that seem a VPN (that may be joejapping Walter) to keep on removing the "Spanish club" wording. Matthew hk (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you report that IP and me to SPI? It was determined not to traceable. I already stated there that it was not me. Can you drop that stick now?
 * As for the edit war. I would be happy if Fcbjuvenil would discuss this. He did not do so on his talk page, at the project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_123, or in this recent edit.
 * As I stated at the ANI you opened about this, the only reason to avoid "Spanish" in that article is that it is a red flag for Barcelona fans who happen to be strong Catalan separatists. Fcbjuvenil is also at 4 reverts now as the "initial re-insert" is revertig the work of another editor. I would rather have a project- or community-level consensus, but that's doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Thanks for opening the RfC at the article, but that may be premature. If the decision is to leave it as "Spanish", then I'm fine to leave it an I will not be involved with anons from getting into an edit war over it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Barcelona article itself calls them a Spanish club so I fail to see how that makes sense. For the record, I do not care whether it says Spanish or not in the player article, but your reasoning doesn't hold water. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 05:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . This is an above-average block due to the larger, contentious, POV-pushing issue of applying the label "Spanish" to nationalist/separatist regions of Spain. This is something that should be forced unless there is a clear local consensus or community-level decision. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 reported by User:97.118.143.21 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * All of the content in question is sourced by multiple reliable sources and is being continually removed. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have begun to suspect our interlocutor is some kind of troll. He alternately restores and removes the content with no coherent rationale. This edit summary is rather rich, as well. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not add the content in question. There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is removed.  You can’t remove sourced content because you disagree with it. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have already informed you, reverting someone else's deletion is considered "adding the content". You added it twice: here and here. Now please grow up, and stand by your edits, and decide whether you want it added or deleted (because you have done both) and you appear to be nothing but a garden-variety troll, who makes frivolous reports of editors like me who act in good faith and have done nothing wrong. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before removing sourced content you need to bring your concerns to the talk page first. Please stop removing sourced content. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring here. If you want to discuss the matter of the article, please go to Talk:Astroturfing. So far no discuss there. Matthew hk (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of order here: My accuser failed to present diffs. I have made exactly one edit to the article in question, while he has posted two links which are not diffs of any edits I have made. I hereby move to close this case, and dismiss the charge, due to lack of evidence and frivolous intent. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 keeps removing my comments from talk pages. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, no one edited in Talk:Astroturfing, so which talk page? Per WP:OWNTALK they can blanking user talk.


 * For diff it seem logout edits instead:


 * First edit, faction A: Special:Diff/889175492 by
 * First revert by faction B: Special:Diff/889175581 by
 * first revert, faction A: Special:Diff/889178530 by
 * accidental self-shooting or suddenly switch side to faction B? Special:Diff/889181279 by
 * second revert, faction A: Special:Diff/889188379 by
 * some self-revert Special:Diff/889189112 Special:Diff/889190032 by
 * Matthew hk (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As a note, when I reverted I did so based on a comment at Talk:Jexodus. I checked the talk page of Astroturfing, saw no discussion there (or DS notices for that matter), and removed the information. I had not looked at the edit history before doing so. I obviously have also not edited since. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since SPI prevent to request checkuser for ip, it never able to prove the owner of the ip, except behavioural evidence, and one edit is not enough.
 * And since the ip 97.118.143.21 self shooting twice, it seem enough evidence to either boomerang this edit war filing to himself (since 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 only edited once) or just close it. Matthew hk (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~  {talk}  07:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:207.189.30.213 and User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:CaptainEek (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to IP given by F&TVfan. F&TVFan28 has not been warned on their talk page, but they did post a EW template on the IP's page so they are certainly aware of the concept of an edit war.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not edited the page in question. I came across this edit war while huggling. It appears that the involved users have not engaged in conversation.

Comments: Both users engaged in a disruptive back and forth over content. The IP looked to be honestly trying to improve the article, and was using edit summaries, so I don't believe the IP was vandalizing. Thus I think both users were at fault for edit warring. Note that the IP was warned on their talk page about Edit warring, by FilmandTVfan28 -- who then edit warred themself! I also note that Filmandtvfan28 then requested page protection for the page in an apparent effort to win the edit war. The IP chimed in at the RPP discussion, contesting the page protection. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)