Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388

User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891027431 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891019162 by ST47 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 890997931 by Khirurg (talk) For a wikipedia article on the Greek minority in Albania, more reliable estimates should be included in the infobox as well as in the introductory text."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 890995634 by ST47 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Information was inaccurate. Numbers were inaccurate."
 * 6)  "Adding the number in percentage, as to make the numbers easier to understand."
 * 7)  "Numbers were inaccurate and exaggerated. Most estimations place the number of ethnic groups in Albania on less than 100,000."
 * 8)  "Information inaccurate/ false."
 * 9)  "Adding the official number of ethnic greeks residing in Albania according to the latest official population census (2011). This is important information."
 * 10)  "Making the information more accurate."
 * 11)  "We already have the information below. There is no need to write the same information two times."
 * 1)  "Information inaccurate/ false."
 * 2)  "Adding the official number of ethnic greeks residing in Albania according to the latest official population census (2011). This is important information."
 * 3)  "Making the information more accurate."
 * 4)  "We already have the information below. There is no need to write the same information two times."
 * 1)  "Making the information more accurate."
 * 2)  "We already have the information below. There is no need to write the same information two times."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit-warring SPA created on 4 April, with the single-purpose to edit-war on the population numbers on Greeks in Albania. Ceaseless, rapid-fire edit-warring and POV-pushing. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  05:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Geeez. I even warned him again after his 4th revert, because I figured I was too closely involved at this point to block/protect. This seems like the only thing this user is interested in doing, we had a brief conversation on my talk page after I tried to develop a common ground but he's gone silent and reverted twice more. ST47 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is typical MO of nationalist SPAs targeting the demographic statistics of Greeks in Albania. Thank you ST47 for your assistance. Dr.   K.  06:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * . El_C 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: 24 hours, both)
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:

I been having problems with U1Quattro. They are still being stubborn when it comes to dispute with a edit. I even told them to take it to the talkpage and not make anymore edits until we reach a consensus but they refuse to corporate and I don't want to get myself into another edit wars. I stated that the article did not contain a front view picture of a production pre-facelift (one that isn't a limited edition such as the RWS or the Decennium). It not a big concern that one picture is used both on the main infobox of the model and in it's respective generation article.

Like the last talkpage discussion, they inserted images that originally wasn't part of the discussion to try and make my reason for reverting useless. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This report is uncalled for because such an image was already there, yet this user decided to revert the edits for no reason even after an image was added. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I added my reason, the limited edition models and the normal production model should be separate things. The edit which you reverted cater to that but you insist to cut corners and treat special/limited edition as a standard production model which I disagree with as well as indirectly taunting me because of the chance I could get blocked if I engage your edit warring. You also removed my AN3 notice template shortly after posting it. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: That was an old template. Plus I had already told you about the Audi R8 Spyder which had the photo taken from the front and that is not a limited edition or a special model but a regular production model. I also had added the photo of the standard R8 coupé as well so this report is uncalled for as I had added the photo which you had claimed was there even if it was. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It the fact that you ignore my request to discuss it on the talkpage before making any more edits. I find that rude, unsportsmen like and possibly disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Your behaviour has been disruptive as well as you start a talk page discussion after reverting the edits which I find rude and disruptive. You also decide to report me every now and then on an administrator notice board when you know that the matter is solvable through a proper talk page discussion and by presenting valid points which I find unprofessional and harmful for my credibility. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * How is creating a talk discussion to prevent another edit war disruptive? I tried to discuss with you and told you not to make any more edits before we reach a agreement, but you ignore that and revert the edit anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: A talk page discussion is started without reverting the edits and not after reverting it. I think you need to read about how a talk page discussion works. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page". Which is the exact scenario we are in. It was clear that we were in a dispute and if we continue reverting it will start another edit war so I attempt to discuss in it talk page which you didn't corporate properly. --Vauxford (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Which you have clearly avoided and reverted my edit before starting a talk page discussion even when a consensus could easily have been achieved in a talk page discussion. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I said what I have to say and attempted to explain it clear as I can, but this is now just rallying back and fourth since you are just trying to turn the guns around toward me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both editors were recently excused with no block here after a multi-multi-revert violation on 1 April, about the choice of image in a car article. Since they don't appear to be either able or willing to follow WP:Dispute resolution, I recommend that both editors be blocked this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But I didn't edit warring this time. I even made a talkpage discussion to resolve the dispute before I violated the 3RR! I stated it as clear as I can above. I don't understand, what I'm doing wrong? Please read carefully of what I stated if you are planning of blocking us. --Vauxford (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 21:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lamberd reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User repeatedly since January removes information with sources and also changes text against sources — 1, 2, 3. User was invited to talk page to explain his vandal actions and reminded about edits' vandal nature reminder 1 and [reminder 2] and reminder 3 on his talk page with links to rules, however he preferred to continue vandalism 4.

Comments:

and yet he continues with no explanation, talk page or whatever - diff link--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and yet again — vandal edit, by strange admin action it was even protected, though admins have to protect consented on pre-war edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

turns out the user makes the same warring practical in another article here. Oshwah FYI--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * one more destructive edit here--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Asks:

Oshwah your actions are incorrect. you protected vandal version which was not explained once. according to Wikipedia rules I have the right to stop vandalism, however I didn't overstepped 3-reversion rules and made many requests on the talk page of the article in question, here, on vandal's talk page and during reversions. you should correct your actions.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, hi, could you please pay attention? I think because a few understand the topic, admin made incorrect protection keeping vandal edits, which is utterly strange.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Arsenekoumyk! I apologize for the delay responding to your inquiries here. I had a few urgent Wikipedia matters come up that I needed to resolve immediately, and they required my full attention. Please see the response I left for you here on my user talk page. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond there and I'll be happy to assist you further. :-) Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * hey, Oshwah, a little above there are links to me pinging him in various forms, he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arsenekoumyk - Ugh, I apologize... I'm an boneheaded idiot. You already provided them and they're right in front of my face... LOL  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oshwah unnecessary self-criticism :) hard to pay attention to everything all the time--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Arsenekoumyk - HA! I appreciate that. :-) Between reverting vandalism, taking action against disruptive editors and sock puppets, assisting new users and those who need my assistance, processing reports at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, and other noticeboards (as well as making sure that those backlogs are clear), and my other daily tasks - my ability to keep track of everything and remember what users are talking about can fall short at times... ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm normally on top of this noticeboard but I've been busy writing Bollocks to Brexit and ranting about RfA as usual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333 - There's absolutely no need to apologize. There is no deadline, and you were busy focusing and working on important things. It happens... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

uchar haji chechen 1 23 4 5 Lamberd (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lamberd 1) there is talk page for these. 2) some sources were given about your version, deleting everything and deneutralizing article isn't fit for wiki. 3) you started warring. 4) chechen online non-scientific websites aren't eligible as sources. i could write 5 articles like that.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * also what's the reason of giving 2 sources copied as 5 here? is it for mass effect for the case no one checks?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Three days of EC protection by User:Oshwah. The present article seems garbled, and I wonder if a better job could be done. I notice that the Russian article at ru:Учар-Хаджи is much longer and more detailed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston vandalism issue isn't attended to. the request isn't about warring only, but warring with vandalism. basically the user succeeds in sabotaging the article, sources say one thing, vandal just changed pieces of text contradicting sources, but leaving the sources at place. at least pre-war version should be reverted to--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston excuses, I've not seen measures were applied to the user in question. however, vandal version is still intact though--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you already reverted what you consider to be the bad edits on 4 April. If you still think that something is wrong you should explain your concerns at Talk:Uchar-hadji. By coincidence, I had blocked User:Lamberd during this period due to an edit war at Chechens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston I'm done explaining it for now, did it around 5 times on different pages. hope he comes to talk page.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Friedrich von Bodenstedt 1847: Soon the house, where there were two generals with their environment, is fearless Chechen. “Why are your people – the Greeks begins his speech, violation of the agreement, again started the war?” “Because you were the first to break the Treaty and because my people hate you as their executioner,” said the Mullah. “Silence, traitor! – the General was angry, "interrupted him," do you not see that your comrades have left you and that you are in my hands?" I'll have you tied up and your lying tongue torn out.…” “Ah, so you honor your guest?” – screams in rage Chechen, and rushes to the General and stabs it with his dagger. Present rush, sword in hand, a Mullah, a cry, a few people becomes the victim of an angry Chechen, until he falls, pierced with bullets and bayonets. Among those killed was also Lieutenant General Lisanevich, one Colonel and two other officers were wounded. So within a few minutes found the death of two brave Russian General, not to mention the other victims.

– немецкий писатель, переводчик и поэт, долго жил на Кавказе. «Народы Кавказа и их освободительные войны против русских», 1847 г. Lamberd (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891204934 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) Per WP:BRD, get WP:CONSENSUS for these changes rather than re-reverting."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891199790 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) per WP:BRD, please discuss and get WP:CONSENSUS for these bold changes."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 889815751 by Softlavender (talk): Undiscussed changes (TW)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
 * 3)   "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ more"
 * 4)   "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
 * 5)   "/* Undiscussed changes ? */"

The reverting editor is repeatedly citing WP:BRD, when our policy explicitly states that Revert only when necessary and mentions, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." In addition, I began a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Lowden#Undiscussed_changes_? talk page discussion], but the user chose not to explain their repeated reverts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * . You need four revert to exceed 3rr. That said, I'm a bit mystified as to why the new addition was reverted. El_C 11:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * says that: ":Your reverts were not an improvement, they were inaccurate, and they were not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. They were unexplained, they made the article clearly worse, and there was no element that was an improvement." Do you agree with that, ? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, she must have added that comment while I was writing mine. Personally, I have no opinion, but more details would be helpful. El_C 11:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure why Krimuk2.0 has filed this report, particularly since there has been no 3RR violation. He has failed to explain, much less make a case for, his changes but instead is edit-warring to preserve these unexplained changes, even though he has been reminded of WP:BRD. Meanwhile, he is blatantly WP:CANVASSING his wiki-friends on the talkpage rather than explaining or making a case for his changes. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an improvement to the article, and you blindly reverted it. The onus is on you to explain why. I started a talk page discussion and asked you explain, but you did not. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * As mentioned above, rather than making any attempt to explain or make a case for his edits, the user (who has already been previously blocked for edit-warring) is simply battlegrounding, blatantly canvassing, and edit-warring to ram them through, and has now violated 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not. The very first edit was not a revert, but my original edit. Also, "already been previously blocked for edit-warring" is false because i was unblocked within minutes because the admin decided that the block was a mistake. Please don't misinform. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * . As mentioned, the first edit is the original addition, not a revert. El_C 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C, that is incorrect. Please see WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The user has now made 6 (series) of consecutive edits that undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first and the last two of of your above-mentioned diffs had nothing to do with "undo[ing] other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part". The first was my original edit, which you reverted; the last two were an MoS correction and removal of puffery. As previously said, please don't try and misinform. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what undoing means. WP:RV is clear: "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit." El_C 11:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:3RR says. 3RR is what is being reported here. If you do not understand 3RR, I will create a thread on WP:AN for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring =/= 3RR...  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is WP:3RRN, and in fact WP:EDITWARRING is the same page as WP:3RR. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaning: One does not have to revert thrice (or more) to be an edit warrior. I hope that clarifies things. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond the problem of your misunderstanding of what a revert is (you need four to exceed 3rr), is the problem that you've yet to explain what was "inaccurate" about the edits you contested. El_C 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He has made six so far, and five of them were within less than 2 hours (see new links above). WP:3RR says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (italics mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A one-time removal of longstanding text, in and of itself, does not count as a revert. El_C 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. What part of "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" do you not understand? Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That would make any removal of text a revert. El_C 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not interpret 3RR this way. El_C 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you are in error. What it says is very clear and not subject to misinterpretation except by deliberately ignoring what it specifically states. Not only that, it's a policy, and a brightline. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we are at an impasse, because I interpret the policy differently from you. El_C 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You believe what the policy says is not what it means. If you belive that, then please go to the talkpage of the policy and have it re-written to say what you want it to say rather than what it does say. Even beyond that, whether or not you agree that Krimuk2.0's first block of edits was a revert according to 3RR, he subsequently made five more reverts (please see the additional links added above after you added the result to the header), and they were all within less than two hours. Can you please view those edits and comment/act on them? Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit 5 changes "(post-production)" to "Post-production" — I don't see how anyone was reverted by that. Ditto for edit 6, which removed "popular national" from "a television advertisement." El_C 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a very straightforward situation. Not counting the first edits by, they have reverted three times. has also reverted three times. The 5th and 6th diffs added by Softlavender are two of the consecutive edits that are part of Krimuk2.0's last revert. They do not count as additional reverts. There can be no argument about that. Thus, the only issue is whether Krimuk2.0's first edits count. This issue has arisen many times before, and administrators have different views. AFAIK, it has never been resolved, and it ain't gonna be resolved on the noticeboard (and probably never on the policy talk page). Softlavender, give it up. Your conduct here is overly aggressive. You and Krimuk2.0 have both edit-warred regardless of who started it or how many times the article was edited by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bookworm857158367 reported by User:Anotherwikipedianuser (Result: No action necessary)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Several reverts without good argumentation and refusal to discuss it or throwing the onus of discussing on me. He has a history of edit-warring on this article. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I referred you to the discussion on the talk page and asked you to discuss it there before reverting again, which you did not do. I’d still suggest that is the best place for the discussion to take place rather than here. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask, you gave an order, when you are were the reverting user in the first place. And I don't take orders like that. You were the first reverting, you start the discussion, not the other way around. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s already a discussion on the talk page, which is where this conversation probably belongs if you want other interested input. Once you knew someone disagreed with your edit, the talk page is the best place to discuss it without continuing to restore your edit. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The same would apply to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So why don’t we go discuss it there instead of here? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You would have to start it yourself. I won't give you an order to do that. Either you want to do that or you don't. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this further on the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the reported editor is willing to engage in discussion on the talk page, I don't see the need for any action here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. User:Bookworm857158367 started the discussion on the talk page and asked me politely to participate (albeit without pinging me), which I agreed. You can consider this closed. Thank you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving this discussion off the noticeboard and to the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Bonner16 (Result: no violation)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Charlesdrakew is involved in edit warring with different editors (including myself) across several airport pages. He continually disrupts the pages by removing future destinations, claiming they are spam or promotional material. However, they comply with the templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content 3.4 and are properly referenced. User:Charlesdrakew refuses to engage in proper discussion, either on the respective Airport Talk pages or the Airport Project Talk page. The fact that he does not apply his 'policy' across all airport pages only serves to show his prejudice against several specific airport pages and renders them inconsistent with all other airport pages on Wikipedia. User:Bonner16 (talk) 17:40, 06 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation of 3RR. And user seems to respond promptly and courteously to queries on their talk page - see User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2019/August for example. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:45.222.28.101 reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (..."I will just keep re-adding until you just edit (some) info and not just push a propagandist opinion. "...)
 * 3)  (note personal attack)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (..."I can do this all day - I have an automated system being setup that will just keep changing the article...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edit summaries indicate editor is not acting in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RockHippie reported by User:Zoolver (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported: Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are sockpuppets of

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/889071132

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Three reverts in 20 minutes. Ignored suggestion about finding a source and then ignored message on user talk page to stop edit warring. I suspect User:RockHippie, Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are the same person. Same edits/reverts for the same claim without source ("and three brothers") since March 28. Zoolver (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP range 2601:702:4202:5310::/64 was . No comment on whether User:RockHippie is engaging in anonymous socking, but I did make it a hardblock to prevent any logged in editing from the same range. You can refer to WP:SPI if you believe a sockpuppetry investigation is warranted. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Themanhascome reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The new user readily joined the old "holy war"; blanked the warning from his talk page: --Nicoljaus (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both users have been sternly warned by User:DeltaQuad a few minutes before this report was made, and no further reverts have continued. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I was writing this report instead of edit warring. -Nicoljaus (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ST47 for the ping. Users --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * had previously deleted the same warning from his talk page and made once more revert . So, he successfully deleted unpleasant information--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Adrian Fey (Result: protected for one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 891137192 by StAnselm (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE - this has already been determined to be a BLP violation (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891065987 by Adrian Fey (talk) - that is certainly NOT the consensus on the talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Fraser Anning. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated 3RR attempts to remove sourced biographical material, despite the fact Senator Anning's quote about the so called "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory was cited verbatim and the fact that said canard has been verified to be anti-semitic in nature by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors rightwing extremism in the United States. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had claimed a BLP exemption for my reverts. An uninvolved administrator (User:Abecedare) had already noted that this contentious material must not be restored without consensus. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except that said extract from the speech was already presented at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and thus said event happened in reality, therefore it is not libel to describe Senator Anning's actions in this manner. The fact that you repeatedly reverted legitimate edits by contributors attempting to reinstate said paragraph (With the original even going as far as to shift his sources in order to pass BLP standards) does not help your case either, and did escalate to borderline editwarring on numerous occassions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * has continued to edit war and has now broken 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've weighed in to continue to reinstate the BLP violation. Did you read the admin note on the talk page? I've continued to remove the contentious material per WP:BLPREMOVE. I have been claiming the BLP exemption to 3RR which is designed for this sort of situation. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not established why the content is a BLP violation - WP:CRYBLP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your reverts are doing more than removing the content you insist is a BLP violation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

. Protected for one week. Hopefully, that's enough time to sort out the consensus. As mentioned, another admin has already instructed editors regarding the the blp issue, so no action on the 3rr front. El_C 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor is not just removing that which they claim is a BLP violation when they do these reverts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, in the spirit of Che Guevera himself, after full protecting the article of a racist moron who found himself in parliament after receiving a full 19 votes because his other racist compatriot got kicked out and they had to get someone to replace him, you can simply refuse to respond. Nice one. What the fuck do we have WP:ADMINACCT for anyway? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Deep breath. I simply have not noticed the response, because I was busy elsewhere. Anyway, the reverting is over as the page is protected now and if you feel there's a problem with part of that, you are free to make an edit request, which I'm sure another admin will attend to, eventually. El_C 08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bite me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to take a breather. This is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct yourself. El_C 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. "in the spirit of Che Guevera himself" indeed? I suggest a nice walk in the park. You'll feel better. -- Begoon 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand how the reference may be lost on the average passerby. Here's why I brought it up - - my anger being that the person they profess to admire wouldn't approve of the blase fire and forget way they chose to use their community granted power. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is hard to understand at the best of times, and I'm not the clearest communicator. Sorry for the misunderstanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I take exception to that characterization. El_C 13:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * lol cool now try to explain away "Bite me". Everyone can see that you had a Heated Gamer Moment, not a misunderstanding. Reflect and be better. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All this talking about biting is making me hungry. Does anyone mind if I just take a little nibble? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it, as far as I'm concerned - but be healthy. Remember that you are what you eat... -- Begoon 12:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Also check and

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (removal of content)


 * 1)  (1st revert)
 * 2)  (2nd revert)
 * 3)  (3rd revert)


 * 1)  (removal of same content)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User persistently removes arrests information from the infobox of the article. Please see Talk:Philippine_Drug_War on details. In addition, the user has vindictively renamed the talk page section into "Trolling". —Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Signedzzz and Sanglahi86 have violated WP:3RR on this article. Signedzzz's actions on the talk page are also troubling. I have blocked both editors &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:TheRingess reported by User:206.214.54.16 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&oldid=886552142

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=891000618
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889754308
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889632404
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889606870
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889592620

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889648522

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siddha_Yoga&diff=889597372&oldid=856835955

Comments:

Siddha Yoga is widely recognized as a cult in many public sources over the last several decades. I happened to hear about this and was looking at the Wikipedia page but didn't see any mention. So I made a new section. It turns out they did cover some of this under "History" sandwiched between unrelated paragraphs about the group's history. I removed what I added and pulled this into a new section called controversy and added some. This was edited and removed. I tried to use the talk page, I warned them of the 3 revert rule, and finally they agreed to "compromise" and put controvery as a subsection of history. This was satisfactory to me the text included was only what had already been on the page. Then a few days later they reverted their "compromise" saying it was fine previously. This same user has a history in this article of reverting any changes which bring this topic up. While filling out this form I noticed they have previously reverted changes to try to make them seem less credible or otherwise push any discussion of this side of the organization out of the article. This person seems to be clearly biased in favor of this organization and attempts to claim anyone adding this information is being "non neutral" which is what they're doing. They shouldn't be allowed to edit this page anymore. 206.214.54.16 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no edit warring by TheRingess here. However I would urge to discuss this on the talk page with the OP &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Nothing to discuss. Provide meaningful sources then we can move forward. So far you have nothing."
 * 2)  "Take a look at the talk page. This was brought up 8 years ago. No one objected/engaged in discussion then. Where are YOUR sources that establish this as an actual trilogy worthy of an article???"
 * 3)  "Please don't reinstate pages that lack independent reliable sources."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 891425875 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 5)  "what a load of bollocks. the only person to describe these as a trilogy is the director and everyone else just jumps on the bandwagon. not notable for separate article."
 * 6)  "←Redirected page to Baz Luhrmann"
 * 1)  "←Redirected page to Baz Luhrmann"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Refuses to follow WP:BRD in full. I've tried discussing on my talk page here but they refuse to acknowledge my points, and have made a personal attack. Another editor has stepped in, but they have continued. They consistently replace the page with a redirect to Baz Luhrmann, saying that sources are "unreliable" and citing an issue resolved 8 years ago. They have violated the 3-revert rule (as the selected contribs show). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction. The above user has not attempted to engage in discussion and has refused to respond to my valid questions on their talk page, preferring instead to simply issue "warnings" and report me, rather than actually evaluating and responding to the point I make. The issue from 8 years ago remains unresolved. No independent sources establish these 3 films as an actual trilogy that requires a separate article. This was just a packaging gimmmick for a dvd release. I also refute the accusation that I made any personal attack. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was a bit preoccupied with you continuing to revert despite being told to stop and discuss. And I was going to respond until you made a jab at me, so to speak - you're not supposed to comment on contributors, just content, when having a civil discussion on Wikipedia.AzureCitizen has also told you to stop. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Preoccupied? That's nonsense. I had stopped reverting long before. You had plenty of time to respond to my points, but instead ran off here. I'm still waiting for a meaningful reply when you're ready....2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And at no point have I commented on you. I have made no personal attack at all. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems Schazjmd gave some evidence on my talk page (kudos to him), if you don't mind taking a look. And I'm fairly certain "I guess using templates to hand out "internet bans" makes you feel important?" (from my talk page) is a personal attack. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Don't be so offended. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And to answer the question on WP:BOOMERANG - I called on the edit warrior to take making the article to WP:AfD or a similar venue, since doing something as drastic as making it a redirect without consensus isn't exactly smiled upon. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But where is your response to the points I raised? Stop focusing on trying to dish out internet bans and engage in the actual discussion as I am trying to do... relying on another editor's rather underwhelming google search result is simply not enough. Not a single one of those references actually establishes any notability for this "trilogy" (note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key). 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So:

""note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key""


 * Ironic, considering that in context the article says it's not a trilogy, but rather a grouping of films by a director that use a similar style. I'm considering renaming it to "Red Curtian Trilogy (box set)" to avoid confusion (which is what this entire fiasco seems to be borne out of) - I'm not saying I disagree on the point that it's not a trilogy, I'm just pointing out that even if its not a trilogy, it's still notable. The Google Scholar sources do prove this, if actually read into. Also, again, drastic things such as blanking an entire article and adding a redirect is something we don't do without first establishing consensus between ourselves to do so. Ignorance of the fact this is a community project and that no one person has the power to do drastic things on their own (without being bestowed the power to do so in select cases in a RfA) doesn't mean you're not immune to that reality.


 * The reason you've been reported here is quite clear-cut: You violated Wikipedia policy by persistently reverting others edits instead of following WP:BRD. Even if you've stopped now, the violation still exists.


 * I'm sure this has been a waste of your time. It has been for me too. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It appears that the IP has stopped reverting. If there is still a concern that this is not a valid topic for an article, take it to WP:AFD. Renaming the article to Red Curtain Trilogy (box set) is conceivable but that might not be important enough for an article. The mentions in Google Scholar don't quickly decide the matter either way. It is at least a trilogy for marketing purposes, but maybe not for more than that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.32.131 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was warned twice in their user talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User claiming with no source that these are the names of the characters these actors will be voicing. Similar situation to that one months ago that ended up in me having my username changed -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG?     ST47 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring to add unsourced information about the voice roles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Solkarn reported by User:Paulmlieberman (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user makes the same changes every day or so starting March 31 (initially changing it on March 21, after which User:Fish_and_karate semi-protected the page). This user also edits a page Wakhan which is much less viewed, and which, perhaps, should be merged with the Wakhan Corridor page. The apparent reason is to assert a claim by Pakistan to this territory. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Solkarn is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the Wakhan Corridor article unless they have obtained prior consensus on the talk page. The reliable sources are in agreement that the Wakhan Corridor is part of Afghanistan. Hence, edits such as this one appear to be inserting wrong information, perhaps through some nationalistic motive. The user may believe that the area should belong to Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:93.177.75.254 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891528754 by Praxidicae (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891525988 by Praxidicae (talk) Take the criticism to the talk page, before you undo primary sourced edits"
 * 3)  "/* Gaming Romances */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 891518951 by Praxidicae (talk) This is balanced with firsthand sources"
 * 5)  "Romantic Engagements"
 * 1)  "Romantic Engagements"


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


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


 * Comments:

This is actually possibly just blatant vandalism, continuing to add blpviolations stating that the subject is in a sexual relationship with someone with no source that supports this (and also, no relevance.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked by User:Nick &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Black Kite reported by User:2600:1003:B01A:191F:C453:4015:1BFA:C31D (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

. You need four reverts to violate 3rr. Also, you failed to add the field Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page—which I suggest you do (discuss your edits on the talk page, that is). El_C 00:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've reverted three times because the information being added is speculative or simply false (especially after the vote in Parliament tonight). The IP has reverted four times - twice as User:198.200.181.196, once as User:204.153.79.113 and once as the IPv6 reporting here.  All three IPs geolocate to Maryland. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

. Page also semiprotected for 10 days. El_C 00:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Closed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Presence of the term "alt-right" in lead as of 11:07, 8 April 2019
 * Presence of various sources in the ‎"Controversial views and claims" section as of 14:33, 8 April 2019
 * Presence of the term "false" related to Pizzagate added by NorthBySouthBaranof at 22:05, 8 April 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:33, 8 April 2019 - restores "alt-right" term to lead found in 11:07, 8 April 2019 version (moved slightly)
 * 2) 21:47, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 14:33 version
 * 3) 22:07, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 22:05 version
 * 4) 22:43, 8 April 2019 - reverts to restore "false" term found in his 22:05, 8 April 2019 edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: given at 22:17 before 4th revert

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

Comments:


 * That Pizzagate is false is indisputable. Removing that word, or the prior "debunked" wording, as Netoholic has repeatedly done, suggests that it could be true that named living people are guilty of serious crimes. It is, factually, not true. That Netoholic wants to suggest to our readers that it could be true suggests they may not be able to edit articles on this subject in a policy-compliant manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've self-reverted because apparently Netoholic desperately wants everyone to know how much they believe Pizzagate is true; why else would they defend such utter freaking crazy libelous nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got a couple of potential policy violations in that comment that you should consider striking when you've calmed down. 199.247.46.74 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Closed. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Black Kite has posted at ANI to request more admin opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I, too, would have gone with No action, as the user has self-reverted. El_C 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked for 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891630576 by 125.236.128.202 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891028124 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891028124 by Dr.K. (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

As soon as he got unblocked for edit-warring, he started exactly the same disruption. Please see report 4 days ago when he got blocked for 72 hours for reverting 7 times. Dr.  K.  15:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User has already been blocked, for 1 week. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joshi punekar reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

1.Firstly all citations should be neutral to biased. 2.News paper cannot be a neutral source. 3.For this page food section has been created separately so if you want to contribute so please go to that page. Simply don’t vandalise instead drag this to Talk page."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Diet and culture */All book reference only mentions saraswat,but this is particularly for Goud saraswat Brahmins.If you find that sentence in any book reply me in the talk page ."
 * 2)  "/* Diet and culture */Hope I have given proper citation for justification.Alway variety matters .I have given justification in talk page"
 * 3)  "Exclusive page is there for cuisine “Saraswat cuisine “ so this information will be redundant.All content mentioned here is there in that page.Feel free to message me in case of any clash."
 * 4)  "/* History */Formatting the sentence"
 * 5)  "Same citations which I found in saraswat brahmin page.
 * 1)  "Same citations which I found in saraswat brahmin page.


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


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

Etho-POV pushing re. Brahmins on multpile pages. —— SerialNumber  54129  18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Note:See my edits and concerns before talking decision.Just for someone they are going away from wiki policy of neutrality. Joshi punekar (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. It appears that Joshi punekar wants to remove all mention of fish being part of the diet of the Goud Saraswat Brahmins. At first glance, the mentions of fish in their diet are sourced. He is implying that the people reinserting fish to the article are vandals. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rmv WP:SYNTH per WP:BLPREMOVE: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources""
 * 2)  "resolve edit conflict, and again WP:BLPREMOVE several examples of WP:SYNTH that do not mention Swann, CBS, etc."
 * 3)  "rmv recently added dog-whistle word to lead per WP:BLP"
 * 4)  "prior edit wasn't complete and accurate per ajc.com source"
 * 1)  "prior edit wasn't complete and accurate per ajc.com source"
 * 1)  "prior edit wasn't complete and accurate per ajc.com source"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Synthesis */"
 * 2)   "/* Synthesis */"
 * 3)   "/* Synthesis */"
 * 4)   "/* Synthesis */"
 * 5)   "/* Synthesis */"

Last diff is a revert of the alt-right language put back in by User:Kuru here after it was removed without discussion by an anon IP. They again reverted it out in one of the consecutive diffs after I restored the well-sourced language, while the first two are clear-cut wholesale reversions after their edits were objected to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

The 12:10 edit was just an edit, not a revert. There was also an edit conflict that I mentioned in the 22:06 edit summary - I was working on the 22:02 edit on the pizzagate section and saved, not seeing an intervening mass-revert by NorthBySouthBaranof. Likewise, these are WP:BLPREMOVE-based edits which are pretty obvious to an outside observer as I am removing SYNTH sources which fail to mention the subject of the article itself (Ben Swann). These sources seem to have been included to build up some form of "refutation" of Swann's reports, but don't mention him specifically and in some cases pre-date his. Inclusion of these sources is an exceptionally clear BLP violation, so I would encourage admins to enforce the removal of them per WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Netoholic @ 22:36 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The 3RR exemption applies to unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and none of the material in question is unsourced or poorly sourced. Your belief of what is "synthesis" is debatable, and you have refused to discuss it on the talk page. Moreover, your removal of the well-sourced words "debunked" or "false" from the description of malicious bullshit like Pizzagate is a BLP violation the other way - multiple named living people were falsely accused of serious crimes and we are required to be clear that Pizzagate is false. Your edits suggest that it could be true, which is literally insane. The "alt-right" description is in multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "poorly-sourced material" includes material which doesn't even mention the subject of the article. I'm not going to debate specific content concerns related to labels here. The problem is the SYNTH created by using irrelevant sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not SYNTH to use a source which says something is false to support the statement that something is false. SYNTH involves creating novel conclusions not found in reliable sources. The conclusion that Pizzagate is false is found in a million reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why we link to the conspiracy theories, not re-litigate them in every other article. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "false" or "debunked" is not "relitigating" anything, it is a simple and well-sourced statement of mainstream reality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Before the admin buttons come out here,, what is your rationale for removing sourced relevant material? It clearly isn't SYNTH for an article to point out that a BLP subject's claims are refuted in multiple reliable sources.  Otherwise we run the risk of suggesting that such claims are reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is SYNTH because those sources do not mention Swann or his "claims" (if such exist) at all. He is fundamentally a reporter that covers controversial topics, not necessarily that he makes "claims" about those topics. If he does, then surely there are sources which mention him, his claims, and offer refutation of them all in one source. To string together unrelated sources to draw any conclusion is the heart of WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @  23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a proper reading of SYNTH. There is no requirement in policy that every source in a biographical article has to mention the article subject. We can use sources of general applicability anywhere. What SYNTH prohibits is novel interpretations of sources. It is not a novel interpretation of a source to say that 9/11 was not an inside job and that Pizzagate is manufactured troll bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how SYNTH works. Obviously, for major figures (i.e. Trump), when they say something false a reliable source will automatically come along to point it out.  But for far less important figures that would suggest that for material to be included in Wikipedia, a reliable source would need to specifically debunk his false claims, even when they're obviously false.  But there are so many thousands of people in the media, social media and the Internet peddling false information that it would clearly be impossible to find reliable sources for every single one.  No, if we have a BLP who is known for doing this, all we need to do is provide reliable sourcing to point out that many of his claims are false.  We need nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "A makes a news report about widgets. B, C, and D say widgets are fake news." (But do not mention A specifically) - This is pretty clearly SYNTH which is designed to disparage A and imply something about A's reporting which no source is independently saying. If there is criticism or doubt about A's news reports, then find sources that give a review of A's work. You'll know them when you see them because they'll actually mention A. (Heck, did you even notice that I added a source like that during the time I was removing this SYNTH?) What the WP:TRUTH is doesn't matter, and it sounds like you are more trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by "getting the word out" about these conspiracy theories. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about Ben Swann (who incidentally I'd never heard of before tonight - I'm not American). I'm pointing out that you are removing sourced information that is relevant to the article and you aren't giving a good reason for doing so. Pointing out that someone has published claims that are false is not a BLP violation if their claims are refuted by reliable sources. Now, I strongly suggest that you seld-revert your fourth revert (as NBSB has done), and then both of you head off to the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "if their claims are refuted by reliable sources" IS THE ISSUE at hand. I only removed sources which had no mention of Swann. If there is no mention of Swann in a source, there can be no refutation of his "claims" either within it. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on editors to use sources that mention the subject, or that are used in a way which is less WP:SYNTH. Also, as I said, the 12:10 edit was clearly not a revert, it was a re-write of a small section. So no 4th revert is present. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't seeming to understand the concept that we don't need a source to mention Swann in order to cite that a claim is false. Normally I would protect the article but in this case, since you're not going to self-revert, I am not going to do this as it may be seen as rewarding edit-warring. I am going to post at WP:ANI for further admin eyes. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - But you DO need a source which describes Swann's claims. In most cases, we have only sources that say he reported on some subject. That's all. Here is a really good example of one item. We have a source that only says he hosted a segment on the topic of “5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta Emails.”. That's it. The source I removed made no mention of Swann or his segment. I'm not even convinced that second unrelated source was even about the same aspect of the news story. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * peanut gallery comment If Jeff Rense says tomorrow that "vaccines cause autism" we don't have to wait until someone specifically refutes Jeff Rense to note that this is incorrect. @Netoholic: you were, at a minimum, edit-war-adjacent at The Great Replacement really recently. Maybe you should just follow WP:BRD in relation to conspiracy theory articles from here on out. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS doesn't mean WP:WRITEWRONGTHINGS Nblund talk 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: How is this a (4th) revert? El_C 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It specifically and clearly intentionally removed, among other things, the word "alt-right" from the lede, which is a revert of the immediate prior edit by User:Kuru, which had just restored it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

. User failed to self-revert, as was suggested. I don't see how the BLP exemption (due to SYNTH) applies in this case — as it all seems to fall within the scope of mainstream sources. Also, reverting the closing admin in the report below (authored by the user) is disconcerting. El_C 00:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This block was heavy-handed. I dispute the idea that this edit was any kind of revert. It was a rewrite of a small section. Apparently the grounds for it being called a "revert" was based on the incidental, unintentional, removal of a single term "alt-right" which, if it had been explained clearly to me and if given the opportunty, I would have self-reverted to put back that term. Despite repeated asking, El_C refused to unblock me for the duration, so I was not given the chance to show good faith to rectify this perceived slight. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:PaganPanzer (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:  

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

There are multiple users raising issues with the neutrality of the article on the talk page      

A number of users have tried to improve the neutrality of the article by removing biased text or changing the language to be more neutral     

All of these edits were immediately reverted by the user in question without any attempt to resolve the issues in the talk page. I believe the political text in the article is very clearly not neutral and is bordering on pushing an agenda and should not be allowed to remain in its current state.


 * Comment from uninvolved editor - 3 minutes after filing this report, and despite clearly understanding what edit warring is, PaganPanzer made their 3rd removal of the disputed content from the page in less than 9 hours. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PaganPanzer, can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring while your own complaint is already open? EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting contentious and biased material is exempt from edit-warring policy. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * by Snooganssnoogans. But, watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The user in question is very clearly holding the page hostage in a non-neutral state and is refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. If he is not violating an edit-warring policy then fine, but then where should I report him for this behaviour? His behaviour is seriously damaging to the neutrality of Wikipedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , your best bet might be to bring your concerns to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * PaganPanzer continues to revert repeatedly at the article, well over the bright line of 3RR, despite discussion still continuing at the talk page. Request that you look at this report again and consider WP:BOOMERANG. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Soarwakes reported by User:My Lord (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:41, 25 February 2019 Undid revision 884564684 by My Lord (talk) undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
 * 2) 05:00, 2 April 2019‎ Undid revision 890324188 by Abhi88iisc (talk) Deletion is not done by consensus undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
 * 3) 14:02, 4 April 2019‎  Undid revision 890901349 by My Lord (talk) consensus not required to create page undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
 * 4) 04:20, 9 April 2019‎  To delete an article consensus is required. Please refrain undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As per discussion at User talk:Soarwakes, this user is clearly not understanding that there is a established consensus at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014/Archive 1, that we should not create a POV fork on Cow vigilante violence in India, because that subject is same as Cow protection movement. This editor continues to edit war against the established consensus claiming that you need no consensus to create an article and that we can't redirect a POV fork without initiating an AfD. Admin should either block this user for engaging in a lame edit war by reverting 4 times by disregarding the established consensus or restore the redirect and fully protect the redirect in order to avoid this WP:POVFORK.  M L talk 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleting article without consensus is wrong. I have posted it in the talk page. Instead of using WP:AFD, you have redirected the article, feel free to take the article there. No need of consensus to create an article, you can use various allowed methods to delete it. It is you who is doing edit warring. Soarwakes (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

. Please take it to WP:RM if you want to move the title elsewhere. El_C 08:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that 4 reverts were made  in more than 24 hours that's why they don't count as violation? Per WP:EW this user has engaged in gross misconduct.  I also don't think your message solves any problem. RM is not issue here but creation of a POVFORK against established consensus. This user is engaging in WP:IDHT and not gaining a new consensus to overturn the existing consensus.  M L talk 12:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the timeline falls outside the scope of 3RR. I may have, indeed, misunderstood the rest, for which I apologize. El_C 13:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:86.164.35.39 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891637561 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 2)  "This Needs To Stay This Way"
 * 1)  "This Needs To Stay This Way"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user keeps restoring unsourced content to this page and is refusing to stop as requested. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:142.21.15.116 reported by User:A lad insane (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891870058 by A lad insane (talk) I can provide the evidence of all the letters provided by SLC and ICC as evidence"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891869744 by Lugnuts (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 891869552 by A lad insane (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 891869457 by Lugnuts (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 891869094 by Lugnuts (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 891837690 by Lugnuts (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

At 6RR today, adding unsourced POV not to mention BLP vios. Resolutions have been attempted via edit summary. Sources, while promised, have not been provided. -A la d insane (Channel 2)  17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ~ GB fan 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:DVIssac reported by User:Joythommi13 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Comments:

The user page DVIssac was created 2 weeks back and edit warring with me on subject page.Since i havent explored wiki much i cant talk with this user since wiki says the page doesnt exist.Also a talk page on said page doesnt exist currently.Excuse me if i missed anything before reporting this.This guy claims the original palyoor church with arthat church which have no historical background,but a bogus claim started by the same church members in 21st century.I have given historical proofs on wiki page St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Palayoor regarding the claim of palyoor as the one and the only actual palyoor church. Joythommi13 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

. Please just take your concerns about the content to the article talk page—communicate with the user directly on their user talk page. If an article doesn't exist, you can create, it—just be careful when you do. El_C 21:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:70.112.229.80 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: block, semiprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Since this project page says that "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.", I'm including all of the accused's reverts:


 * 1) Content blanking by 70.112.229.80
 * 2) Revert by one editor, LightandDark2000
 * 3) First revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he refers to the other editor's revert as "vandalism".
 * 4) Revert by a second editor, Ohnoitsjamie
 * 5) Second revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he refers to the other editor's revert as "vandalism".
 * 6) Second revert by Ohnoitsjamie, in which he cautions The Accused against reverting multiple editors and misleading edit summaries with a link to WP:VANDALISM, and advises him to use the talk page
 * 7) Third revert of 70.112.229.80, in which he tells Ohnoitsjamie that he should go to the talk page.
 * 8) Revert by a third editor, Nightscream (myself), in which I also added publication info to a bare url cite that had previously added, and even conceeded, in the spirit of collaboration, that part of his content removal was reasonable.
 * 9) Fourth revert by 70.112.229.80 in which he remarked on an error he perceived on my part by saying, "Please learn how to read."
 * 10) An unrelated revert by me to another part of the article
 * 11) Revert by 67.100.0.114. It should be noted that this 67.100.0.114 is traced to Dallas, Texas, while 70.112.229.80 is traced to Austin, Texas. If you have the ability to determine if these were both the same user, I'd suggest that you do so. Otherwise, make of it what you will.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Lengthy attempts have been made to discuss the accused's concerns, first on my talk page, and then on the article talk page.


 * He persistently and falsely accused me of "plagiarizing" a paragraph I wrote in the article that was actually properly paraphrased and attributed--first on my talk page, where I supplied him with several scholarly/academic sources showing that the definition of plagiarism did not describe my work, and then continuing to do so on the article talk page -- See the entire first subsection of the "Request to block Nightscream from editing this page" section), prompting another editor, Argento Surfer, from using a plagiarism detection tool that showed the paragraph in question was not plagaized.


 * 70.112.229.80 attempts unsuccessfully to have me blocked, only to have multiple editors caution him on Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTADVERT, WP:PROSOURCE, etc.


 * He complained about my removal of an uncited passage he added to the article, claiming that a source cited earlier in the article supported it, accusing me of being in league the article subject and saying, "Nightscream is either incompetent or willfully ignorant. I'm not throwing insults here -- I am genuinely questioning his ability to read, comprehend, and process text", requiring two other editors (Argento Surfer and Emperor) to caution him not to make unsubstantiated accusations like this, and explaining to him that others have no way of knowing if a cite in one part of an article also applies to a latter passage, and that he has to add the cite to the second passage too.


 * When I made a honest mistake about a previous statement he made, he knee-jerk accused me of "lying". When I acknowledged my error and apologized for it, he did not acknowledge this, or his earlier overreaction.


 * After one perfectly politely message by me in which I attempted to discuss my understanding of policies and guidelines pertaining to sourcing, and explain why I had removed additions he made to the article, he responded by saying, "This is the last time that I respond to anything that you write. You are a joke and have wasted enough of my time."

Comments:


 * I state this without malice -- I genuinely feel that many people who are longtime editors/writers aren't aware that they are either poor writers (eg lack of talent or skill) or write too much. In Nightscream's case, both apply.  Moreover, as time passes, Wikipedia has fewer and fewer contributing voices, due to real-world time constraints, loss of interest, or being driven away by longtime editors/writers who've become chummy with each other.  This phenomenon has been documented by The New York Times and author Andrew Lih.


 * See https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html


 * I stand by my edits, which I feel are superior in both content and grammar.

70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

. for 6 months. You've conducted yourself in a subpar manner and there are consequences for that. El_C 21:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006, Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive387, User talk:Mnpie1789

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

Comments:

The edit warring resumed after the block expired, with no discernable difference in the behavior or the type of edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 00:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:144.138.81.21 reported by User:Vivvt (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "DO YOUR RESEARCH! ANANT MAHADEVAN IS NOT PART OF THE MOVIE ANYMORE!"
 * 1)  "DO YOUR RESEARCH! ANANT MAHADEVAN IS NOT PART OF THE MOVIE ANYMORE!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rocketry: The Nambi Effect‎. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Co-direction credit */ new section"


 * Comments:

IP is not discussing anything on talk page even when the discussion is started and keep reverting to their version, in spite of sources. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute is on whether to include the name of Anant Mahadevan as director. What about this article from India Today (21 January) which claims that Anant has dropped out as director of the film? The sources currently in the article that mention Anant as director, which include the trailer, are mostly from 2018 or earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source that you mentioned has this particular line. Later, the Vikram Vedha actor revealed that he will be directing the film along with Anant Mahadevan. Article and/or source does not mention that Mahadevan's part will be shot again by Madhavan. So it has to be mentioned that they have co-directed the film. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 15:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the India Today article. Though their chronology is confusing, the opening sentence says that Anant Mahadevan has dropped out of the project. Do you have a more recent source that says anything different? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It doesn't appear that this dispute is continuing. Feel free to add more sources to the article if any are available. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

(The article is subject to 1RR limitation)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary for ARBCOM-protected articles subjected to 1RR (plus the user was well aware, see below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apart from repeatedly edit warring at an ARBCOM protected article, TheTimesAreAChanging makes it very clear they are actively gaming the system. After violating 1RR, the user did self-revert saying Yeah, I thought 24 hours had passed - and then simply waited another hour for the 24h to pass before again starting to edit war. This starts to add up to quite a file. Violating 1RR, repeatedly edit warring against discretionary sanctions, and actively gaming the system, showing a complete lack of understand of what 1RR means. My recommendation would be a three month topic ban from all articles subjected WP:A/I/PIA. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging made a brusk but articulate explanation for the edits. The crux of this situation is that the WP:ONUS is on the those who want to push inclusion of an article that doesn't even mention Max Blumenthal. TheTimesAreAChanging's edits functioned to protect the page against frivolous POV-pushing material. He not only didn't violate the ARBCOM in any meaningful way, he very much upheld its spirit. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether TheTimesAreAChanging's edits were correct or not is discussed on the talk page. Like many other users, I disagree with your view and instead find that you and TheTimesAreAChanging are the ones pushing POV. That, however, is beside the point here, as being "right" is no excuse for edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that as of the now neither User:Jeppiz nor anyone else has responded to TheTimesAreAChanging on the Talk page. They are instead attempting to evade a debate and game the system by starting a frivolous action against a good-faith editor who self-reverted. GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit frustrating that GPRamirez5, who operates in tandem with TheTimesAreAChanging on the article, continues to fail to understand the difference between content and behavior. And no, TheTimesAreAChanging did not self-revert, as the edit history shows. Self-reverting only to re-revert one hour later is not a self-revert, it is system gaming. Contrary to GPRamirez5, I have no POV on the subject and have only edited the article once. My report is based on a flagrant policy violation, not a POV on the subject matter. Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may add, TheTimesAreAChanging only made the revert after I suggested them to do so, saying I was "threatening sanctions based on technicalities". Quoting them: "But, yeah, since you're threatening sanctions based on technicalities, I can let this poorly-sourced, disputed content that you are edit warring into a BLP without consensus sit for another hour. We'll see how well that works out for you." --Jamez42 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear that it was in fact Jamez42 who truly started the edit war by reverting back his original contribution instead of following WP:BRD. In comparison with the WP:ONUS to follow BRD and defend his addition of material, it was indeed a technicality.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . From WP:BRR: "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit without accommodating some aspect of the other editor's remarks is a hostile act of edit warring. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." This is a perfect description of Jamez42's behavior.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing discussion about the edit here. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My revert was to your edit, not TTAC's. Shortly after their second revert, I discussed the changes per BRR. More importantly, I did not violate 1RR and I do not have a precedent of edit warring in ARBCOM protected articles, 1RR shouldn't be considered a technicality, just like the three-reverts rule isn't. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You have a history of editing Israel-Palestine articles Jeppiz, so I would hardly think you're indifferent to Max Blumenthal. And again, it is not only a right, but a responsibility to block contentious material from an ARBCOM page. That's the whole point of the sanctions, and that's what what TTAC was doing.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jamez42, your first discussion of your addition didn't come until at least three hours after your re-reversion on the addition. That's called edit warring, regardless of whether you were counter-reverting me or TTAC's. GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is over for me. I can understand why GPRamirez5 is anxious to defend somebody editing with the same POV in the same articles, but the venue is ill-chosen. GPRamirez5 seems to think people sharing their POV are not only entitled but even required to violate ARBCOM restrictions. I disagree, and in all my years on Wikipedia I never heard that argument but this is for others to decide. I have seen an obvious ARBCOM violation, and reported it. Nothing more to add here. Jeppiz (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Freelion reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn (talk) to last revision by Freelion (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892106675 by Alexbrn (talk)Using the word "cult" is a lazy way of discrediting any movement. New Religious Movement is the current lingo."
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn (talk) to last revision by Freelion (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 892096203 by Harizotoh9 (talk)No, because they are referenced and pre existing."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 891955967 by Alexbrn (talk)Don't delete 4 references without discussion"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 891956081 by Alexbrn (talk)Don't delete 17 references without discussion"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 891956107 by Alexbrn (talk)Don't delete 9 references without discussion"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891956107 by Alexbrn (talk)Don't delete 9 references without discussion"


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

see Talk:Sahaja Yoga and postings at WT:MED; also User Talk:Freelion.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As discussed on the talk page, Alexbrn is abusing his influence on Wikipedia by not playing by the rules. He is deleting well referenced material and not engaging in discussion. Freelion (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

. El_C 07:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warning 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 891860336 by Shemtovca (talk) you are intentionally trying to remove sourced information that you think might be bad for Mr. Mizrahi. The information you remove is not a violation of WP guidelines and is sourced from published articles in respectable journals. Please refrain."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891608989 by Shemtovca (talk) It is related to Khashayar Khavari, when in the news articles it says Khavari obtained the money from his father, you have been trying to whitewash this case for over a year now. please stop."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 891116905 by Shemtovca (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahmoud_Reza_Khavari. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 891621739 by Masterofthename (talk) don't hide the history"
 * 3)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahmoud_Reza_Khavari. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is engaging in Edit Warring. Has been warned and blocked for edit warring in 2016. The user is also making unsubstantiated Personal attacks WP:PA. I ignored the initial mentions, but you keep repeating it. Shemtovca (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The user ShemtovCA is an avid supporter of the state of Israel and wants to remove published information linking Iranian Canadian banker to a hard core supporter of state of Israel in Canada, Sam Mizrahi. All the material that he keeps on removing is published in Canadian newspapers, the connection is made by the respected news sources but this user insists that the connection is defamation. The user ShemtovCa should be banned for this activist behavior. Masterofthename (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we go again, another personal attack on me personally. What is my support for state of Israel has anything todo with this? Shemtovca (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are actively trying to censor information that is bad for Israel. Not fooling anyone here.Masterofthename (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

. Masterofthename, that is not an acceptable response. Shemtovca brought their concerns to the article talk page, and you are now obliged to respond to these, certainly before reverting again. Which you have so far failed to do on the basis of what? Insinuations and innuendo? That does not fly here. El_C 21:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

his actions on removing a big chunk of the page which came from sourced material constituted a clear example WP:VD, but I guess this issue is too important so normal rules don't apply anymore. Everything has become a joke, even the Wikipedia. Masterofthename (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All this invective is not helping your case. El_C 11:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:AlanKreutzer reported by User:DePiep (Result: Edit reverted, no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2) My (DePiep) revert:
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did so on User talk page:. Not on article talkpage in this incident (previous re other users: ,).

Comments:


 * The pager must be understood to be under WP:ARBPIA rule, so 1RR applies. After this incident, I had the ARBPIA editnotice installed ; the ARBPIA talkpage warning I added to page User talk:AlanKreutzer. So formally the warning might not have been seen by the editor beforehand.
 * Anyway, I am not supposed to revert once more, while obviously AlanKreutzer did not engage in the BRD I started on their talkpage.


 * I propose to create the shortcut solution: revert this edit, and all is fine. With this, I do not ask for a block. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So ordered, . Drmies (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Hasan342 reported by User:Levivich (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No my dear, blatant vandalism is not the consensus version. I have notified Oshwah about the edits. Lets wait for his opinion..."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892161254 by Volunteer Marek (talk) When you accuse someone you should be able to prove they are guilty, not the defendant that they are innocent. It is the same here, when you edit something in Wikipedia you should be able to back and explain your claim. You cannot go rogue on different pages making edits, and expect others to reason the fight against your vandalism. Several "contributions" you have made prov"
 * 3)  "...prove that you have an obvious agenda. The radical changes you made  in the introduction really show how far you can go. This party's ideology did not change yesterday, but based on your opinion the page was completely wrong the whole time. It is almost offensive to our community; I wish to see an unbiased Wikipedia, where facts dictate opinions, and not vice-versa."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 892132391 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Okay, this is my limit. No explanation how the article and which part proves that the party is far right. Just google "party for freedom far right", copy two random links, use them as references and hope for the best. This is not how the greatest online encyclopedia should operate. You should do detailed research first, then cite the articles you used."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 892132130 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Once again, please if there are any administrators on this page, take action."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 892004328 by Volunteer Marek (talk) 24 hours gone. What does "per source" mean? You still have not clarified how these references back up your claims. I have requested from an administrator to come and make a final decision on our dispute. If there are any other administrators following this page, please step up."
 * 7)  "We discussed the reliable sources policies earlier in this thread. Not every article from an accepted source is reliable. I keep giving you detailed explanations for every change I make, yet you simply threaten (with very bad grammar) me on my talk page. I once again will place the earlier version approved by our community for quite some time. We both have made three changes in the last 24h, lets stop it and leave it to other users."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 891954643 by Shadow4dark (talk) Still, there was no reference to the actual paper in the article. Also, this article was published in 2008, eleven years before, even if it were to be accepted at the time, now it would be the time to update it. Furthermore, the Trouw article itself is not of an academic standard. And, it takes quite more than a single study and two researchers to establish a non quantitative social fac"
 * 1)  "We discussed the reliable sources policies earlier in this thread. Not every article from an accepted source is reliable. I keep giving you detailed explanations for every change I make, yet you simply threaten (with very bad grammar) me on my talk page. I once again will place the earlier version approved by our community for quite some time. We both have made three changes in the last 24h, lets stop it and leave it to other users."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 891954643 by Shadow4dark (talk) Still, there was no reference to the actual paper in the article. Also, this article was published in 2008, eleven years before, even if it were to be accepted at the time, now it would be the time to update it. Furthermore, the Trouw article itself is not of an academic standard. And, it takes quite more than a single study and two researchers to establish a non quantitative social fac"

Diff, diff (by another editor)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff (by another editor)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

3RR warnings (diff, diff) were read (diff). Note the edit summary "We both have made three changes in the last 24h, lets stop it and leave it to other users." followed by "24 hours gone" and another revert. See also this post and this post on 's talk page. Thank you. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:84percent reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: No action, stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (reverts this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candace_Owens&diff=891962717&oldid=891962658)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I notified them that they broke 3RR here and they chose to not respond, instead continuing to edit the article. Fairly recent account with a strong interest in Candace Owens & throwing around alphabet soup links including allegations that the content is libel - may be an older user in a new account (of course, they insist they are not.) Also involved was, who was reverted, and , who endorsed the reverts made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. also broke 3RR. I don't have the time at the moment to provide diffs, but it's clear-cut undos (just search edit filter mw-undo I think).  w umbolo   ^^^  09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support blocking Kolya - we have specific limits for reasons. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I may have been kind of sloppy with my reversions, but I felt like I was acknowledging 84percent's concerns while we were going back and forth making changes. It would have been better to use the talk page, but I felt like we were communicating through edit summaries.  --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is also my fault. FWIW, I'm glad we were able to have a long, and in my opinion civil, conversation about the section, even though we couldn't reach agreement. I'm glad it is still being discussed, and I hope we end up with wording we can both agree on. 84percent (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reporting me. The rough consensus from this issue being discussed on the BLP noticeboard, from, and  is that including the manifesto mention in the lead, as it is now, may violate WP:BLPBALANCE and appears to constitute WP:LIBEL, especially if you are omitting the well-sourced fact that the manifesto was "designed to troll" (and hence only quoting the killer verbaitm). Desipite this, you, along with Volunteer Marek, are insisting on this tidbit of likely-WP:UNDUE information being in the lead. I described the issue with the lead in short detail on my talk page here (however the noticeboard page has better discussion and more contributors), and I have also created and been involved in a lengthy discussion about the Christchurch section on the article's talk page, where I've asked for extra pairs of eyes. This is my only account on Wikipedia, however I don't know how to prove that to you. I apologise for reverting your material; my intention is only to keep the BLP accurate and neutral. Lastly, I especially apologise for this last edit, as it was genuinely unintentional; it's a copy-paste mistake using the virtual editor: my intention for that edit was only to re-add citations, as I said I would do here a minute beforehand (however I accidentally added back the blockquote). 84percent (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was a mistake, why did you refuse to revert it and claim there was a 3RR exemption for it here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the reverting of the information you have added to the lead about the Christchurch shooter naming Owens in his manifesto. Only the edit I linked was unintentional; the rest were not mistakes. 84percent (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

More detail about the edit I say is accidental (and not relevant to the lead issue): The diff you included is missing an intermediate revision; if you see the same edit in this diff, you can see that I'm adding sources. I did not intend to bring back the previously deleted blockquote. I've just made my final edit on the article for today to remove the blockquote I accidentally respawned. 84percent (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll let another administrator look at this as I'm short of time; however, just to point out that I've imposed 1RR discretionary sanctions on the article, as this is starting to get ridiculous. Anyone editing the article who hasn't previously had an ARBAP2 notice will get one momentarily. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. 84percent (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Candace Owens article is evolving rapidly (50 edits/day) due to the comments about her in the press and there is a lot of talk page discussion. At present it is not obvious that the page needs any admin action. The user cited for edit warring in this report, User:84percent, is active in the discussion at WP:BLPN. Some of 84percent's edits that have been listed above as reverts might have been intended to fix BLP issues, though we don't know for sure that these removals were justified. User:Drmies has participated at BLPN, and User:Black Kite has recently dropped a 1RR restriction on Talk:Candace Owens. I hope those admins will comment if they think the article is being disrupted by edit warring. If the problem is that edits are too rapid, then a few days of full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have no qualm with the current lead. My position is that the second half of the lead shouldn't be removed without prior consensus in the active discussions on the talk page or BLP noticeboard. Currently the BLP's lead is:"She was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”. There is contention over whether the gunman was being sincere."The defamatory bad lead was:"She was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”." 84percent (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I feel the need to ring my pedantic and quixotic bell here. I actually prefer the newer lead.  That being said, the old lead may not be ideal, but it is almost certainly not defamatory--because, as far as I can tell, it is literally true.  There are plenty of reasons to reject additions to BLPs without resorting to legal categories.  Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which lead specifically? The newer lead is the top quote, to be clear, however there have been countless variations over the past 48 horus. 84percent (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the top lead. I'm not sure I'd even mention the connection, to be honest, as it feels weirdly undue--though it has certainly garnered coverage (I have no deep knowledge of the subject).  I don't like the lead you call "defamatory," but I think that label is inapposite.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we agree. There is discussion ongoing on the BLP noticeboard as to whether it belongs in the lead at all. I believe the bottom lead, while factually correct, is still defamatory in the sense that it's not technically false, but is still misleading (false light). 84percent (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * False light is obviously not recognized in all jurisdictions, and even if that's our analytical rubric, I find it unconvincing. If the comment in question were to say "she was the person the manifesto writer most admired," you'd have a much more compelling case.  There is nothing misleading about describing the contents of the manifesto as it pertains to her.  It would seem that the various publications which have reported on the fact agree with me.  Again, I think it's a mistake to lean too heavily on legal categories when it comes to BLP policy.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make any legal argument. Various reliable publications agree that the statement from the gunman is insincere, and I think it's important to include that. That's all. My lexicon is failing me this morning; apologies. 84percent (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! And I certainly am not saying you must cease with the argument; I just think it's not helpful to you (I could certainly be wrong!).  I tend to agree that the statement is insincere, and that it's important to include that.  But it's a matter of accuracy, not defamation.  After all, if there is any malice, it lies with the author of the manifesto.  Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * An admin who said in an edit summary for an edit to Candace Owens, "Owens is an idiot" (!), imposes 1RR as admin action to the article.  w umbolo   ^^^  09:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a WP:BLUESKY situation to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Owens was an idiot to make those comments about Hitler (is that even in doubt?), but you'll note that edit was fixing a BLP issue on the article, and anyway, imposing a unilateral 1RR is not the same as making an admin action that favours one "side" or another. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually yes it is. Just like protection, 1RR is biased toward the status quo at the moment of being imposed on the article. w umbolo   ^^^  19:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the edit prior to the 1RR being imposed was yours, you should be happy then. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the circumstances, but the reporting user 's contributions have appeared as volatile interjections on several 'hot' talk pages in recent times. cygnis insignis 10:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whereas you're the image of sincere collaboration. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My reply to one of the posts on that page, one of the tag-teaming accounts spending months harrying anyone who objected to their opinion (and still are), forum shopping for blocks, pushing 3rr against a consensus confirmed and reconfirmed in several forums and the talk page. My reply, a diff from their recent contributions shit-stirring elsewhere, was to the following comment,

This became a theme that was used by another tag teaming account, after the account PeterTheFourth responded with this, And here it is again, on a BLP is it? I'm open to scrutiny and accountable for any disruption, but would point out that there is an overriding concern in this account's activities that extends beyond their puerile thuggish contributions to discussion. cygnis insignis 17:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "@Cygnis insignis: Hi Cygnis; is English your first language? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the turns of phrase you use, but that may just be my own stupidity. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "@Cygnis insignis: Let me be brief - consulting a thesaurus and switching every second word to a synonym makes you look stupid, not smart. I've tried to be nice about this habit of yours - just stop it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 "
 * Cygnis insignis: since I was already here, let me give you a quick outsider's point of view on the diffs you have provided. The first strikes me as completely civil; it doesn't sound like anyone was calling you unintelligent, rather that there was some seeming unidiomatic language.  English Wikipedia has contributors from all over the world who speak many languages, so the question does not strike me as out of line.  The second diff is blunter, to be sure, but is good advice.  I have dealt with more than one editor who seemed to always have their nose in a thesaurus.  For some I think it was an affectation, others just a unique idiolect.  It can certainly inhibit one's effectiveness on Wikipedia.  To be clear, I haven't seen that from you here.  I guess my bottom line is that, while there may be problems elsewhere, what you've presented here is fairly thin gruel.  All the same, best of luck to you in life and editing.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with building content? Why are you interjecting with 'I'm not saying this is true, but consider what they say'? The topic of this page is edit-warring, I'm beginning to outline what I seen as a pattern of highly disruptive non-content improving behaviour, and think that will be evident to anyone hoping to stop the same. But here we are,, exploring the notion you and the alleged both wanted amplified to muddy the waters, with the qualification "To be clear, I haven't seen that from you here." Likewise, mate. Shall I ping you in to future discussions? cygnis insignis 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a diff from one of your earliest contributions, in 2015 at Gamergate controversy Supporting PeterTheFourth's change. cygnis insignis 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And just clarify the label I used in the diff is not my spin, it is quoting the user's edit summary. cygnis insignis 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Closed. Despite me posting on WP:AN for fresh eyes, since this report is over two days old no action is going to be taken, let us hope the 1RR restriction works as planned. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:146.198.193.9 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892349514 by Thegooduser (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892348933 by Thegooduser (talk) why bother lying?  explained perfectly clearly, if you are capable of reading edit summaries. Now if you disagree with the reasons, you can say why, but pretending I didn't give any is just pathetic"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 892333652 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 4)  "removed useless words"
 * 5)  "using the word "trademark" in this sense carries the implication that the reader already knows about it. As such, it should not be used in the first paragraph of a lead section."
 * 6)  "/* Comeback and superstardom (1986–1999) */ carries no information of use"
 * 1)  "/* Comeback and superstardom (1986–1999) */ carries no information of use"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Steven Tyler. (Using Twinkle"


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


 * Comments:

The user has reverted my edits repeatedly but, you'll notice, hasn't even once come up with a reason for doing so. 146.198.193.9 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Same user as above which User:Bbb23 has blocked for a week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:186.139.218.234 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* The Cartoon Cartoon Show (1998–2002) */"
 * 2)  "/* List of shorts */"
 * 1)  "/* The Cartoon Cartoon Show (1998–2002) */"
 * 2)  "/* List of shorts */"
 * 1)  "/* List of shorts */"
 * 1)  "/* List of shorts */"
 * 1)  "/* List of shorts */"
 * 1)  "/* List of shorts */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on What a Cartoon!. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on What a Cartoon!. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on What a Cartoon!. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on What a Cartoon!. (TW)"


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

Clear case of vandalism blanking. Blocked for 31 hours. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Krystian w ski reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=891819375&oldid=891816682]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=892445035&oldid=892440034]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=892447802&oldid=892446195]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=892449562&oldid=892448462]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=892461788&oldid=892461690]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burberry&diff=892467336&oldid=892466380]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKrystian_w_ski&type=revision&diff=892472666&oldid=892451170]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABurberry&type=revision&diff=892467241&oldid=855630101]

Comments:

Repeatedly adding ungrammatical changes. Similar edit warring on Louis Vuitton and Henryk Sienkiewicz. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:61.244.128.167 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"
 * 2)  "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"
 * 3)  "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */Toy Story is a Disney film based on fairy tales, Chicken Little isn't"
 * 4)  "/* Disney feature films based on fairy tales */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps adding Toy Story and Mulan to the list without a source. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 05:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:146.198.193.9 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I requested that this individual not post on my talk page further.. They proceeded to do so twice more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Was notified of this section here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of this user's reverts over the course of a year and a half:

The user accused me of being responsible for all eight edits that he reverted. This baseless accusation is a grievous personal insult. The WP:OWNing of articles is not allowed, and this user clearly believes that they own this one. 146.198.193.9 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What I said was "Hum. How many of those is you simple jumping around from IP to IP." These are obviously you.
 * And than we have the 9 reverts on my talk page.
 * Lots of issues from this user such as on User:Acroterion talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Doc James as I have had to revert the IP as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Bbb23 has blocked the IP for a week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the Best Known for IP, and they are de facto banned. The nasty attitude is how they roll.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they are actually banned Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah good to know thanks. Have raised the issue here regarding if we can do anything more.Administrators%27_noticeboard Otherwise I will just start blocking whenever I see them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SimonATL reported by User:Dreamy Jazz (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/892632668 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/892632930 - adds back first Buttresses section
 * 2) Special:Diff/892633392 - adds back first Buttresses section
 * 3) Special:Diff/892634022 - adds back first Buttresses section
 * 4) Special:Diff/892634970 - adds back first Buttresses section
 * 5) Special:Diff/892636929 - adds back in similar content, but includes the first Buttresses section as was before, but with a reference (which in the end does not support the information)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Although not warned on their talk page, in Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire the SimonATL was pinged twice by myself during the discussion. The first time I pinged them was requesting they stopped adding the material, following the comment by. They did not attempt to discuss this. The second time, after I said that Ritchie333, is what SimonATL has done a violation of the 3RR?, I then pinged them at 21:40 (Special:Diff/892635562). After this, at 22:51 they carried out the 5th addition of the content. They still have not (at 23:34) commented in this discussion.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussions at Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire

Comments: Other editors were also reverting him, so I have not broken 3RR in this case (I reverted them 3 times). He used the edit summary as a way to "respond", such as LEAVE intact until the supporting reference is posted. Return to your video games. (diff) (this was 3 mins after the first ping). Although this is not a big deal (to me and most likely others), I do think that this was a violation of 3RR and the edit summary shows intent that they were ready to continue to readd the unsourced information (as they did). Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:BobNesh reported by User:Josephua (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * [|05:56, 12 April 2019‎]


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * [|04:47, 5 April 2019‎]
 * [|14:42, 5 April 2019]
 * [|15:57, 5 April 2019]
 * [|03:10, 12 April 2019]


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * [|02:57, 6 April 2019]
 * [|02:59, 6 April 2019]


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


 * None


 * Comments:

Bob Nesh keeps putting a source that is not reliable and is against WP:RS. He keeps changing the source that was inputted in the article to what he wanted and does not address the consensus of what his reasoning his, even though we give him reasons why the source he was using was bad and warned him that if he continues doing this, he will be reported for edit warring. Josephua (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BobNesh will not stop WP:IDHT when you look at their editing pattern. Constant POV pushing. I support a siteban or imposed 0RR. w umbolo   ^^^  21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

. A bit stale for immediate disruption, but I left the user a note. El_C 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:16stumps reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892648082 by IanDBeacon (talk)  Edit recently proposed in Talk by milkchaser and went unopposed.  No valid reason for your revision."
 * 2)  "Restored exculpatory examples of Trump's common usage of hand gestures, citing trusted source.  Omitted reference to visual examples."
 * 3)  "Restored inclusion of exculpatory examples of Trump using the gesture with non-physically disabled people from reliable sourcing.  Milkchaser's talk proposal has gone unchallenged, therefore the edit is valid, and serves to reveal both sides of the controversy instead of just one."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 892418168 by Binksternet (talk)  FNC is considered a reliable source.  Both sides of the controversy should receive equal consideration if the goal is neutrality."
 * 5)  "Cited news article from reliable source showing multiple examples of Trump using the same arm gesture with healthy subjects, only as a means of denoting frustration.  This addendum adds needed clarity to Trump's public defense against claims of intent to mock Kovaleski's disability and therefore should not be censored.  Removing this important context strengthens those unsubstantiated claims and exposes ideological bias on the part of the censoring editor."


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


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


 * Comments:

Was blocked previously for WP:3RR violations. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Maxforwind reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. El_C 01:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892613552 by Mooeena (talk) Reliably sourced, relevant. Scrubbing not discussed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892528583 by Mooeena (talk) It's not been discussed. You're now violating BRD."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 892526873 by Mooeena (talk) Removal of this much reliably sourced, relevant content warrants its own discussion."
 * 4)  "Re-add "gender critical" w/ cites. Re-order "terf" section around themes. Remove dupe cites."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been re-adding content against overwhelming consensus of other users in the discussion. Topic may also relate to discretionary sanctions at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mooeena has hounded me on Wikipedia since we met, continually removing content that I add, while ignoring similar content from other editors. In this case, the diff she links above ("NPOV terminology") was in response to a different editor's repeated and possibly cavalier use of a different term on the talk page (this is difficult to see, because yet another editor forked the conversation). Mooeena is ignoring BRD: She boldly removed reliably sourced and relevant content, I reverted it, and I suggested she open a new discussion. She instead re-removed it a second time last night and a third time this morning. I've now extended the courtesy of opening a new discussion for her regarding this scrubbing. I'd like to ask that she stop taking such personal interest in me, and she instead re-focus her efforts on building better content for Wikipedia. A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support a boomerang on Mooeena: she has to all appearances been hounding A145GI15I95 since their conflict over Detransition. Take a look at their editing overlap: This no-edit-summary removal of A145GI15I95's sourced, uncontroversial content on Cultural impact of Star Wars strikes me as particularly inappropriate. gnu 57  19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What are my options, please, to respond productively to this situation? I've invested many hours in attempting to reason with Mooeena here on Wikipedia, in edit logs and on talk pages. I've waited many weeks in the hopes that her opinion of me would temper. I've changed my username and locked my social media accounts due to her repeated remarks of my actual or perceived activity outside Wikipedia. What action can I request to resolve this unpleasant situation? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can start by making an attempt at Mediation, or failing that, look at other Dispute resolution options. El_C 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, I think Mooeena is a good editor and so is A145GI15I95. They need to get over their issues.★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

. In order to violate 3RR, one needs to make four reverts in the course of 24 hours, which is not the case here. Nevertheless, there is edit warring here, so I've protected the page for one week. Please take the content discussion to the article talk page. As to claims of hounding, there is not enough dated diff evidence presented here for me to evaluate, but at any rate, it may go beyond the scope of this particular report. El_C 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've began concluded the process of redacting A145GI15I95 prior name out of past revisions, so hopefully, at least that would be out of the equation. El_C 22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to.

In addition to this noticeboard a thread is open at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.

In addition a prior closely related archived discussion at ANI was 3 weeks ago Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That ANI has already been linked in my first statement above, why add it again here (immediately above) and here (on another thread)? It's challenging and time-consuming to keep up with and respond clearly to all of your contributions that now focus more on my person than on our content. I've gotten the impression that you've begun to hound me too (seemingly refusing anything that appears to come from me, seemingly turning any thread I join off-topic and into trials against my presence, and repeatedly linking diffs of my supposed wrongdoing). Please don't hound me, or at least have the courtesy to open a single case against me in a single, appropriate place. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: No violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892568212 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Rv. no reason to remove factual information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892551423 by Charlesdrakew (talk) This is no rule. No consensus has ever been reached"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 892338248 by Charlesdrakew (talk) RV. please cite Wikipedia rule."
 * 4) 13 April
 * 5) 12 April
 * 6) 12 April
 * 7) 11 April
 * 8) 10 April
 * 9) 10 April


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


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


 * Comments:

A pattern of edit warring while just avoiding 3 reverts in 24 hours on various articles while making no effort to justify their changes at talk. Again at Virgin Rail Group 3 reverts of two other editors in 3 days to push their version without discussion. At Arriva UK Bus the same pattern of reverting another editors who points out that we do not use UK in addition to the country of the UK. Charles (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Although frankly I'm tempted to block the pair of you for such a lame edit war. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I have warned Angryskies to stop following you around and reverting you, otherwise he can expect a block. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article had UK at the end for over 2 years. Until this edit


 * 1) 24 March 2019‎.

I simply changed it back. Then Charles has been reverting back to this edit and also removed additional edits that I made to the article and has been inconsistent with the reason for reverting:


 * 1) UK is not needed or wanted per consensus.Not an improvement. - pointed out there is no consensus
 * 2) See Wikiproject UKGeography - no rule on Wikiproject UKGeography

This user has now been following my edits reverting them, including removal of factual information such the article on Virgin Rail Group where Charles has removed the operating subsidiary and replaced it with former subsidiaries, but using the reason of UK not needed per general consensus . 

If you look at my previous history of edits, creation of articles and reporting of vandals, I have only made edits which are factual. If I am being warned, then Charles should also be warned too.

I look forward to your reply. Angryskies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My reply is simply, edit warring is edit warring, regardless of content (with very limited exceptions such as reverting blatant vandalism, which this isn't). "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring!" is no defence. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NoCoRadioAdvocate reported by User:MB (Result: 24 hours one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892790360 by Mrschimpf (talk) You need to stop.  Your contributions are disruptive to the page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892790228 by Mrschimpf (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

At least 3 reverts under username, likely more as IP, despite warnings on user's talk page. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 22:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Been trying to cleanup this page to meet our standards for radio articles per WP:WPRS (including adding callsign meaning and cleaning up the format section which included a 'these bands don't belong on this station' scold that shouldn't be there), along with removing a non-notable heavy schedule section; there are several other things, including a mention of a station personality's murder, that I would love to expand on, but I haven't been able to get to that. The editor above has not taken any of my advice at all to heart, including bouncing to another IP to restore their article version (and a suspicion from me they were using a community college IP to start the issue yesterday before account creation). They also continue on insisting that K300CP, a Denver translator of the main station, should have its own article, despite all of its information about its five year history (mainly involving re-tunes to various Denver area AM and HD Radio subchannel stations) fitting comfortably in the KBPI article. I have also told them several times that if a station doesn't broadcast HD Radio, we simply don't mention it, but they insist on adding a line which comes off as annoyed that they do not do so. Finally, they added an inappropriately licensed version of the station logo to Commons; a properly-licensed local version I uploaded was removed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Has now hopped to to wind past 3RR.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. Block evasion. Article and redirect semiprotected for six months. El_C 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Partycity reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Warned 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892739926 by John from Idegon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Greendale High School. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Three different editors have reverted this poorly sourced content. Reported user keeps re-adding. It goes on back well into last month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. Left the user a note about starting to use the article talk page and ceasing from edit warring. El_C 03:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. After edit warring continued with no attempt at discussion. El_C 06:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:47.72.113.98 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talk and  IP talk page.

Comments: IP keeps trying to add in the fact that the term "roguelike" has been "co-opted" (previously trying to include "misused" by modern games). Without going into the long history of the genre, there are a small minority of game players that do not like the fact that games that are so far removed from the likes of Rouge, Angband, or Nethack get called "roguelike". But, there are no sources that we can use to show this resentment. I have asked the IP to include sources, but they instead point to the wikitext, so effectively arguing original research. As well as the fact that the term was "co-opted" is a very fringe view. Keeping the contentious POV in without sources is a problem. M asem (t) 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bjcjj61 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "King Richard III was Roman Catholic"
 * 2)  "Added content"
 * 3)  "Added content, Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."
 * 4)  "Richard the III was King of England before Henry the VIII broke with the Catholic Church."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "welcome etc"


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


 * Comments:

No acceptance or seeming understanding of the issues. Repeating the mantra does not instil any faith that they will stop inserting the trivia (and breaking the page formatting as they do it). —— SerialNumber  54129  19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. Earliest edit is not a revert but the original edit. El_C 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:46.208.152.88 reported by User:Ad Orientem (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 892947734 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 892947289 by Ad Orientem (talk) you really think that readers around the world know the abbreviations of US political parties and of US states? They do not. If you think the parties and states are important, write them properly"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 892947076 by Ad Orientem (talk) it is US-specific jargon, not comprehensible to the majority of English speakers"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * none by the user filing the report, despite their three reverts:


 * Comments:
 * Disruptive editing and edit warring. IP was urged to take the discussion to the talk page repeatedly and reminded of WP:BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Nobody's broken the 3RR. No attempt has been made by the user to explain why they think MOS:FIRSTOCC does not apply, nor to justify using US-specific jargon. This is not an encyclopaedia for Americans. The user did not attempt to use the talk page before filing this report. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also requesting that reviewing admin restore the article to last stable version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's hope that the reviewing admin does not need MOS:FIRSTOCC pointing out to them, and does not follow your request to make the article pointlessly obscure and US-specific. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

. 3RR was not violated, but I cautioned the user about edit warring. Discussion seem to be happening on the talk page, so hopefully, consensus can be arrived at there and that will be the end of that edit war. Sorry, in this case, as reviewing admin I don't feel comfortable to get involved with this on the mainspace. El_C 23:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And why did you not warn User:Ad Orientem? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I did not perceive him of being at risk of breaching 3RR. El_C 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not notice their three reverts in eight minutes, then? 46.208.152.88 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to drop it. Obviously, they were not going to violate 3RR having filed this report. El_C 08:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet obviously they were edit warring, and they appealed for someone else to revert a fourth time on their behalf. If you had warned them not to edit war, perhaps they would be less likely to do it in future. Instead, you've endorsed their conduct. Note that they have not said a single thing on the article's talk page. This suggests that the article content was not in fact of any great interest to them. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I already know them to be familar with WP:EW. Warnings are not badges of dishonour, if it's symmetry you're after. An absence of a warning is hardly an endorsement of anyone's conduct. And they have not been around to say anything, anywhere. It's only been a day. El_C 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If they are familiar with it, then why did they revert three times in eight minutes? They were obviously around to say things when they were edit warring and filing reports, but they preferred to revert without discussing. But despite the edit warring policy, and the text that appears when you file a report -- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -- you've bent over backwards to excuse their poor conduct. I will not be at all surprised if I see similar conduct from the user in the future. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, why did you revert at all? Not to mention three times. You seem to be aware of policy, so what is your excuse? El_C 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to answer the question I asked you is noted. Why didn't I follow "an optional method of reaching consensus"? Because it's optional. 46.208.152.88 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So is warning (or suggestion, if you will). El_C 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as yet another incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Belated courtesy . Favonian (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a long list. I confess to not being familiar enough with the LTA to comment further. El_C 10:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Stormbird reported by User:Harmanprtjhj (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first edit  09:51, 31 March 2019‎
 * 2) first revert  15:05, 1 April 2019‎
 * 3) second revert  18:51, 1 April 2019‎
 * 4) third revert  17:14, 3 April 2019‎
 * 5) fourth revert  06:23, 17 April 2019‎
 * 6) fifth revert  19:05, 17 April 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with passion to enforce his blatant POV edits (rejected on talk page) and edit warring against 3 different editors. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a content dispute being discussed on the article Talk page with sporadic reverts by editors on the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonybins reported by User:Zorro naranjo (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Also, Tonybins created and wrote on my users page (not TP), so obviously, he badly imagines the mechanism of Wikipedia, including understanding of reliable sources. He wants to add to the article a list of legislative proposals of Olexiy Poroshenko. I've never seen such a thing in another articles. In addition, he is trying to remove Poroshenko’s quotation about deputies ’income from the "Earnings" section, and replace it with a completely extraneous quotation that's not related to the topic of the section.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Notyfy on users TP

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1) Version before edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - He even recovers an obvious mistake in the title of the source.
 * 5)

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

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

Comments:

User:Zorro naranjo deletes information from authoritative sources. This is deliberate vandalism. Most likely associated with the election campaign in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zorro naranjo I ask you not to delete the information, especially before the presidential elections in Ukraine. The laws of Olexiy Poroshenko are interesting for Wikipedia users, as they relate to the budget of Ukraine, the military, the reform of the customs service and the like. Wikipedia users should know what laws are initiated by the son of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybins (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Max England reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Opinion is not fact. Corrected the radical left bias in this article."
 * 2)  "Radical Marxist pushing their ideology & ignoring fact when it doesn't fit in with their narrative. Wikipedia has long since been a reliable source of information since it was taken over by SJW's."
 * 3)  "Political bias / incorrect labelling / not objective."
 * 1)  "Political bias / incorrect labelling / not objective."


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


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


 * Comments:

Political POV pushing; the edit-summaries explain better than I can. But basically, removing well-sourced material per their WP:POV. —— SerialNumber  54129  16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Earl CG reported by User:Max England (Result: Boomerang)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * as said above. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ghmyrtle reported by User:Mnpie1789 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:Ghmyrtle has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:Ghmyrtle has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:Ghmyrtle seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Further, there is some indication that the user is sock-puppeting, using different IPs to make it seem his views represent a consensus on the subject when they flatly do not. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:Ghmyrtle on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please also see the above section of this page that reports a similar complaint against me by the same user. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As other discussions make clear, is on a longstanding campaign to present the article subject, a convicted murderer, in the most favourable possible light, contrary to the balance of reliable sources, and contrary to the views of all other editors of the article.  I have no "malicious agenda" or "prejudicially biased point of view" regarding the subject; I resent being called "trollish"; I do not consider that any of my edits are "in violation of WP policies and guidelines"; and any investigation will show that allegations of "sock-puppeting" are false.  Can I suggest that a reading of WP:BOOMERANG may be appropriate, and a longer block of Mnpie should be considered?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

. Stale, again. Mnpie1789, as seemingly a single-purpose account you are walking a fine line here — you should be aware of that by now

User:Neill Patterson reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

. El_C 22:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof reported by User:Mnpie1789 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&action=edit&section=10 [diff]

Comments:

User:BarrelProof has submitted a complaint against me for what he calls engaging in an edit war on this Wikipedia page Bobby Beausoliel. Be advised that I am a responsible editor who is carefully following the policies defined by Wikipedia for bios on living subjects. If there is an edit war it is because User:BarrelProof has repeatedly reverted new edits intended to introduce information supporting a neutral point of view of the subject that do not comport with the prejudicially biased point of view he wishes to maintain in the article. User:BarrelProof seems to be motivated by a malicious agenda regarding the subject, using Wikipedia to engage in trollish, in violation of WP policies and guidelines. Attempts by this editor to find a reasonable accommodation with User:BarrelProof on the talk page have been fruitless. I will not engage further with the user in that venue.Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For some background on this dispute, please see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388. The Talk page of the related article also contains related information. The diffs shown above seem to be edits by a different user, although I will freely admit that I have been involved with a content dispute with the reporting editor and that this has involved reverts. I will refrain from further comment at this time. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My comments on this issue are set out in the thread below. I endorse the comments made by .   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

. Stale. El_C 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:K27soccer (Result: Indef of OP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reporter appears to be adding fake information to the article:, , , etc. Should be a swift boomerang. SWL36 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Semi protection is also warranted as there are IP and other new editors involved also. This would best be characterized as a three day vandalism spree. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User attempted to add a student president to the school infobox 4 times in less than 24 hours. I undid one of those edits and warned them for 3RR and vandalism. User responded by opening this report and making the claim again, this time with different students listed, apparently confirming that the first 4 attempts were indeed bogus. I've reported them to AIV. Meters (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And indeffed by User:Ponyo Meters (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:King Crimson the Third (Result: Both warned)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893066021 by Spshu (talk"  "you started it, you have been direct to the talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893065941 by Spshu (talk)" ←That is King Crimson the Third's edit not mine
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893055911 by Spshu (talk)" "againt not all prod.co. not lo be listed, discussion has been started on talk page"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The dispute may have been going since mid-March. If you check the edit history, you will probably see more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Per your message, I've had a look and there's been a dispute for over a year with posting on the talk page a while back. The article has been fully protected on multiple occasions since that post. Please also see User Talk:Spshu for discussion regarding how to handle disputes very recently including advising not continuing revrting without getting another editor's opinion, going to a talk page or contacting an admin noticeboard  RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Both for Template:Film Studio and for Major film studio

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: And you can see multiple edit summaries directing KC the 3 to the talk page. Spshu (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all production companies 16:34, 6 February 2018 on Template talk:Film Studio
 * RFPP] 19:41, 27 March 2019 - to get the other editor to come to the talk page at Template:Film Studio
 * Talk:Major film studio#Other units 19:01, 18 April 2019
 * In my opinion, this could be closed with no action unless User:King Crimson the Third makes a further appearance and explains what this is all about. Both parties could have been making better use of the talk page, but the supplied diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If there is actually a long-term edit war, somebody needs to explain what it is. Spshu's post above isn't very clear. It seems this template has been protected many times in the past; can anyone say why? The protecting admins have included User:Dlohcierekim and User:Abecedare. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the slow edit-warring, dating back to Feb 21, is over the inclusion standard for studios in the template (see my note at RFPP accompanying the most-recent full protection). I agree that 3RR has not been technically breached, so a block may not be justified at the moment. I propose that both the editors be warned that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks even if the 3RR redline is not crossed. In the meantime, I'll drop a note at WT:FILM asking for some extra voices to weigh in on the ontent dispute itself. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. The phrase from Spshu in the last RFPP was I wouldn't say the talk page discussion was very clear, but at least Spshu was attempting it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors are warned for slow edit warring on the Template:Film Studio. Though User:Spshu at least made an attempt to discuss, the next person who reverts the template is risking a block, unless they have first obtained consensus at the talk page or at WT:FILM. Thanks to User:Abecedare for opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthPark1417 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 72 hours, both)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine, discuss on the talk page"
 * 2)  "Following BRD, link within navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
 * 3)  "Following BRD, linking in navigational box for an article on an American magazine"
 * 4)  "Following WP:BRD, discuss on talk page"
 * 5)  "Navigational boxes are for links. Discuss at talk page before changing"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Ownership of articles on Jersey Beat. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2019 */ R"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jersey Beat. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Resolution sought on the WP:OWNer's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 08:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear neither WP:BRD nor WP:OVERLINK are valid exemptions from WP:3RR. El_C 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Walter Görlitz again? Seriously, he has been waging these small edit-wars for years and years with a hell of a lot of other users. When ever anyone complains at his talk page, he just deletes what people wrote on it and goes to war with them. Three days ban isn't long enough, sorry I think a much harsher punishment is warranted for the accumulation of transgressions. Govvy (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been two years since the last block, so I erred on the side of leniency. I'm not privy to anything beyond what's listed on this report and the block log. Certainly, if there's been other issues that extend beyond those, feel free to compile an AN/I report and list these there. El_C 18:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though it's been two years, the user has a history of WP:3RR violations. Their user page also presents a situation as well as it discusses bias with 3RR (from six months ago as well). – The Grid  ( talk )  19:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RatsnakeVS reported by User:FireworkPowder (Result: 72 hours, both)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893205594 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893205470 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893205452 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 893205291 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 893205172 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 893204765 by 109.144.208.76 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 893204798 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) What are you doing? For the last time, I added a source"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 893204139 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) I did source it."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 893203099 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) It's common sense, but I added a source"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893204139 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) I did source it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893203099 by 109.144.208.76 (talk) It's common sense, but I added a source"


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


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


 * Comments:

. The edit warring IP, that is — not FireworkPowder. El_C 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JPratas reported by User:177.98.174.159 (Result: 2 weeks, 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:44, 17 April 2019
 * 2) 14:25, 17 April 2019
 * 3) 14:50, 17 April 2019
 * 4) 14:54, 17 April 2019
 * 5) 18:28, 17 April 2019
 * 6) 19:07, 17 April 2019
 * 7) 23:48, 17 April 2019
 * 8) 13:52, 18 April 2019
 * 9) 15:14, 18 April 2019
 * 10) 15:28, 18 April 2019
 * 11) 15:46, 18 April 2019
 * 12) 16:03, 18 April 2019
 * 13) 19:52, 18 April 2019
 * 14) 21:53, 18 April 2019
 * 15) 10:43, 19 April 2019
 * 16) 11:46, 19 April 2019
 * 17) 12:39, 19 April 2019
 * 18) 18:13, 19 April 2019
 * 19) 20:45, 19 April 2019


 * Comments:

JPratas blocked for 2 weeks. Ec1801011 blocked for 24 hours. El_C 23:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:GoLatvia (Result: Warned Nominator blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:51, 17 April 2019
 * 2) 15:33, 18 April 2019
 * 3) 15:40, 18 April 2019
 * 4) 21:49, 18 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The attempt to resolve the dispute was on my user talk page

Comments:

We had a discussion on my talk page, which user:Number 57 basically made the arguments that the description that I proposed adding is "not necessary" because it does not exist on other articles about Israeli elections. In spite of the warning, user performed another revert. GoLatvia (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as is clear from the dates/times on the above diffs, I haven't broken 3RR. Secondly, as can be seen in the edit summaries of the last three diffs and my comment on their userpage, I have repeatedly requested that GoLatvia respects WP:BRD and stop adding this text to the results table (which they've done six times now, five of which have been reverting it back in: ) until they gain consensus for the change. Number   5  7  22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

. I am this close to blocking both of you for how lame this edit war is. Seriously, you know better. 3RR was not technically breached, but it's close. Anyway, you've both been productive editors with respect to this article — find a way to get along again. I am not going to protect this article, but I expect you both to work toward finding consensus on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume restarting reverting with no consensus gained for the edit is going to result in a block? Number   5  7  06:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You assume correctly. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 06:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Am I able to restore the pre-edit war version, or will you? As this editor has done nothing but edit war over this for the last three days, blocking them for 24 hours won't actually achieve anything unless their revert is reverted. Cheers, Number   5  7  07:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one's restoring anything. Find out what the consensus is on the article talk page, where your absence has been noticed. El_C 07:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your final comment is unfair: I didn't comment on the talk page discussion because it was clear from GoLatvia's wording that they were seeking other opinions – my views were already written out (as they had copied the comments from their talk page where I stated my view), so I didn't think I needed to restate them. Also, what's the point in blocking them for 24 hours if the edit is going to remain in place. That's all they're interested in doing at the moment, so as long as they've got their way, they won't be wanting to edit anyway. Number   5  7  07:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. The point is they are blocked form editing any article for 24 hours, while you are not. As mentioned to the user, I suggest you two consider pursuing other forms of dispute resolution — which you are free to begin immediately. El_C 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The wrong version might be up right now — but allowing you to revert back to the version before it is not something I think is productive. El_C 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Riza tbzli reported by User:Migboy123 (Result: 72 hours, both)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [ 02:08, 19 April 2019‎ Migboy123 (Iranian Azerbaijani and Caucasian Azerbaijani are different and so are their scripts. So I changed it.)]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [ 06:35, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893108926 by Migboy123) ]
 * 2) [ 06:35, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893108598 by Migboy123)]
 * 3) [ 22:51, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893141204 by 188.158.75.222 )]
 * 4) [ 22:52, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893141147 by 188.158.75.222)]
 * 5) [ 22:53, 19 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (He did not comment)]
 * 6) [ 06:12, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893258677 by Migboy123)]
 * 7) [ 07:32, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893274399 by Migboy123)]
 * 8) [ 07:39, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893276897 by Migboy123)]
 * 9) [ 07:48, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893277867 by Migboy123)]
 * 10) [ 07:48, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (He did not comment)]
 * 11) [ 08:07, 20 April 2019‎ Riza tbzli (Undid revision 893278419 by Migboy123)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Hello, I have written in the talk section my issue and reason for changing some things in this article. I will repeat them again here. 1. Caucasian Azerbaijani and Iranian Azerbaijani are different and so are their respective scripts, Caucasian Azerbaijanis use the Latin script while we Iranian Azerbaijanis use the Iranian script, therefore if we want to add the name of this team we must add it with the correct script and we must make it clear that it is in Iranian Azerbaijani and not Caucasian Azerbaijani. 2. There is no reason to add a "Turkish" name for this team because this team doesn't have any link to Turkey nor is it based in Turkey, there is no reason to add this other than politicization mentioned in the talk page by others. 3. I and a few others have raised our concern over the supposed "nickname" of this team being the "Red Wolves", as a person from Ardabil, which is in the Iranian Azerbaijan province of Iran, have never heard this name being used by fans, players, coaches and the domestic national media. However, it has been used by Pan-Turk organisations as a failing attempt to politicize this team. There is no relation between a tractor and a wolf other than politicization. I searched for domestic sources to find proof for this nickname but it was non-existent. Therefore, I raised my concern in the talk page and later edited the article. 4. There were also a statement regarding the fans saying "Ebi yokh" (it means "don't worry" in Iranian Azerbaijani)whenever the team concedes a goal, there was no citation, it had said citation needed for quite a long time as well, nor evidence I could find to back up this statement so I removed it and clearly wrote in the talk page that I have removed it until someone finds evidence. Riza Tbzli has refused to talk on the talk page, respond to a message I left on his profile and has refused to leave a comment on the edits to justify why he is doing this. This individual goes as far as attempting to impersonate that he is an Iranian Azerbaijani, but he is not and he is from Turkey. This seems like a rather loud statement I'm making but the reason I speculate this is because in Iranian Azerbaijani we call a sports club "kelub" while in Turkish they say "Spor", on his profile page he says "Traktörspor" which is the Turkish translation for the team's name. Thank you Migboy123 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

. The way to approach this was not to revert war with the user, but bring these issues to a wider audience. El_C 08:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Abh9850 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) There are too many diffs to link from the two articles (esp the first) he is waging his edit war, have a look yourself   Also, the user Quitenot is obviously a sockpuppet of his. Various users have reverted him, yet he still continues.
 * 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:

. Sock blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:46.40.74.175 reported by User:Mdaniels5757 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893336598 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893336480 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893336372 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 893336258 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 893336040 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 893335622 by 194.124.33.84 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bulgarian lion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also edit-warred on Bulgarian lion. Other participant banned for 72hrs by User:Favonian for block evasion. Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time reporting edit warring. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Reverting vandalism by a sock of User:PavelStaykov falls under WP:NOT3RR. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SovalValtos, User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Jack1985IE (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893127961 by, SovalValtos, listing is as per WP:CRYSTAL does not apply if it's properly sourced. If you want to continue to revert, I'd recommend you edit the 1000's of airport pages with listed, referenced new routes."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893087212 by, You have already caused this page to be locked. And despite numerous warnings which you continue to ignore, I've had no choice but to report your vandalism."


 * Comments:

This issue is now continuing for a few weeks, both have had repeated warnings including a page protection being enacted subsequently expired and have both reverted to the same edit warning, all information is sourced. Jack1985IE (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

. It's only been a week — really? Protected for one week, again. But that's it, any issues from now on will be met with blocks. No more nonsense. El_C 20:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Shame the reporter chose to report here, rather than engage on the talk page per accepted WP practice, where the two reported editors left comments some months ago that could have been discussed amicably and, if not resolved, taken to arbitration.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only edit warring here is by the reporter, who keeps putting back unencyclopedic content which fails several WP policies, and is now trying to imtimidate the rest of us with tendentious reports.Charles (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

3RR broken by User:CordialGreenery (Result: Filing IP blocked per another report)
User:CordialGreenery who just twice within 3 days in February was blocked for breaking the 3RR by User:Doug Weller has not learned his lessons and is edit warring and has broken the 3RR on the article 'The Gulag Archipelago'.

Yesterday he made a recent edit which I felt was a pointless one and I reverted it. Since then CordialGreenery has been trying to edit war his recent insertions into the article. I warned him on his talk page and then he subsequently broke the 3RR. He deleted my warning and called it "spam" so he cannot profess not to have seen it.

The 5 edits within the last 24 hours are 1 2 3 4 5 116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)