Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive389

User:ConcernedCitizenUSA reported by User:El_C (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:49, 20 April 2019
 * 2) 21:53, 20 April 2019
 * 3) 22:17, 20 April 2019
 * 4) 22:19, 20 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:26, 20 April 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:42, 20 April 2019

Comments:

Gave the user the chance to self-revert, but they declined (22:52, 20 April 2019). El_C 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You have accused me of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false. Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides" nor was I "one sided". Everything I added was neutral and factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. It's laughable because the remainder of the article is very much "one sided" and full of misleading information cherry picked from the Cook study.

Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which covers the scientific consensus and controversy.

Furthermore, your statement that I undid another editor's work is false. I have not undone anyone else's work. I simply added a completely new section. So in fact, YOU have undone my work several times now in violation of Wiki rules. Please stop doing that!

Your accusation that I have violated Wiki rules regarding an "edit war" is also false. This is very Orwellian, because you have not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why additions from other author may be reverted. You have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why you reverted my additions. So in fact, you are violating Wiki rules regarding editing the work of others.

I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with ADDITIONS to articles rather than summarily reverting changes.

ConcernedCitizenUSA 8:06 PM (PST) April 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk • contribs)


 * Clear-cut edit-warring - you don't get a pass for asserting that you're right.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:39.42.60.142 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893416980 by General Ization (talk) revert rollback abuser as usual, see consensus on talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893416016 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page and user talk page of this user"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893415234 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 891903951 by 89.72.59.22 (talk) see talk page and stop reinserting this without very reliable sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * . Since edit warring continued between two other users, I have fully protected the page for 4 days. El_C 07:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Qasee1230 reported by User:Argumentdebate (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: I think the edit war is understandably futile to discuss and it appears to be more akin to vandalism. The discussion of the Civil War is more pointless considering the riots between the Sinhalese and Moors that have taken place more recently and deserve more attention, yet this user refuses to allow reputable sources to be used...


 * I blocked both of these for 31 hours for racist harassment. Qasee had this to offer in retaliation for this racist gem by "Argument". I'm about to look a bit closer to see if Argument shouldn't be just blocked indefinitely (and they seem to lack competence as well). Drmies (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's competence they lack so much as an inability to restrain their POV-pushing. Admittedly, the effect is much the same... ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SN#, I was thinking of certain syntactical things inside that edit they were fighting over. Mind you, I have not looked carefully at the edit warring, and who's worse than who. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Argumentdebate 'wins' the number of reverts over a single issue since several people were reverting them. But Qasee1230 'wins' overall since they were reverting quite a few things, many of which were unhelpful but not really vandalism or otherwise 3RR exempt although it depends how you count these as it's likely some could theoretically be combined. There's also an IP who has well exceeded 3RR although to their credit challenged the racist comments simply by asking people to avoid racism Special:Contributions/71.218.108.117. I've only just warned them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.218.108.117&oldid=893479761] Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * do you find it as suspicious as I do that about 14 minutes after you blocked Argumentdebate, User:Athiestsupporter is registered and starts arguing for the inclusion of the same material Argumentdebate was edit warring over [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=893479176] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=893479481]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the user but I am not actually the user. You can do an IP check on me if you want. I will state that the people removing the edits under the claim of Islamophobia aren't actually local Muslims - they appear to be mostly foriegn with one from Pakistan. The religious landscape of Sri Lanka is far more tolerant and it may not be considered Islamophobic by local Muslims to post the content - it's worse that the conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese is brought up when that is not a non-existant conflict, and I am sure that the Muslims would agree that the conflict is far lesser than the one between Sinhalese and Muslims, but of course all the editors here claiming to fight Islamophobia aren't even from Sri Lanka... Athiestsupporter (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Athiestsupporter. And guess what, --the other was a sock too. Thank you . Drmies (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Epf2018 reported by User:Kwamikagami for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags under discussion (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure this is the right place for notification. This isn't a 3RR violation. Rather, in reverting to the version of the article that he prefers, Epf2018 is intentionally deleting the OR, merge, cn and content fork tags that I added to the article and another editor (Diannaa) provided some attribution for. (E.g., on the talk page, Epf2018 said a tag 'was an unwarranted one and only you decided to add it.' I wrongly called this 'vandalism' in my edit summary, when it's merely disruptive.) He did that twice after I twice told him not to, the second time after I threatened to take him to ANI if he did it again. So, here I am at ANI.

There has been a degree of accommodation: I went from redirecting the article to Melanesians, as the other user in the discussion, Austronesier, also prefers (what Epf2018 calls "blanking"), to editing out OR and bullshit (which was the majority of the content) and tagging much of what remained as a content fork. Epf2018 on his part deleted a completely OR section that I had also deleted, to accommodate me, though this section also contradicted his own POV (that there's a racial divide in New Guinea that follows a linguistic division, even though this is contradicted by the very sources he cites). The rest of the content dispute we should be able to handle with RfC's and the like, but the deletion of maintenance tags just because Epf2018 doesn't agree with them is not acceptable. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This user has been making highly disruptive edits, making vulgar, insulting comments and personal attacks in his edit summaries (  ) and insulting and hostile discussion on the relevant talk page (see   ), and has been repeatedly moving the article to a new title without properly consulting all of the other editors. I have only reverted the article to its original format prior to this user's page moves and redirections. The maintenance tag was added without a valid explanation, so I'm not sure why it was included. In any case, the threatening, uncooperative and aggressive behaviour of Kwamikagami has not allowed for any form of consensus, so how can I deal with the issue? Epf2018 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know where I've made personal attacks, unless you consider me pointing out that you don't appear to understand your own sources to be a "personal attack". Or vulgar, unless you consider the word "bullshit" to be vulgar -- but then, it is what it is. Edit conflict: it appears to be the word 'bullshit' that you take to be a personal attack. But it's not. Much of the article *is* bullshit. When Fareed Zakaria talks about Trump's "bullshit", he isn't being vulgar, he's just stating the facts. And in any case, as you say, you didn't write it, so how is it 'personal'?
 * BTW, the closest to consensus we have is to delete the article and rd it to 'Melanesians'. I'm willing to accommodate you on a separate article if it isn't nonsense, and I suspect Austronesier would be willing to too, but when you don't understand your own sources and insist on restoring (let's call it 'nonsense' to be polite), it's difficult to come to an acceptable compromise.
 * In any case, the fact that you don't know how to "deal with the issue" is not reason to delete the merge, OR, cn and content-fork tags, esp. when one other editor agreed on the merge and another agreed on the content fork. The cn tags for OR go without saying. You could solve that by providing refs. Oh, and not deleting refs that contradict your POV would be nice. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits are highly aggressive and uncooperative, you refer to the other editors in derogatory terms, you use foul language as a poor excuse for an edit summary, you don't give any consideration of the points made by other editors who disagree with you, and you are clearly not acting in good faith. You go ahead right here to claim I don't understand the studies I actually use and reference, almost verbatim. I have explained, in incredible amount of detail, the findings of the studies and presented enormous evidence. You have not presented ANY evidence or sources to back up your edits, and just make silly, childish attacks and repeat nonsensical comments without even reading another user's arguments. There was no support or validation for the maintenance tags. There is no original research. Everything stated in the article is cited by valid, academic sources. The article is also distinct from Melanesians in its content and purpose. You are ridiculously claiming that the findings and information from valid studies are "nonsense". Just because you find it to be nonsense, because of your personal ideological perspective, is irrelevant. Seriously, did you even read the studies? Every one makes the clear point of the major cultural, historical, geographic and linguistic differences between Austronesian and Papuan groups in Melanesia, which they then find also exist modestly in genetics as well. How can you not grasp this? Are you denying this? If so, where's YOUR evidence contradicting these facts stated by the studies themselves?? Every ref used in the article supports what I entered, since everything I entered is taken from those studies. You have admittedly stated you have no interest in consensus, and thus continue your unacceptable behaviour. At least an administrator will now be made aware. Epf2018 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your own sources are my evidence. You prove my point for me. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected by . Next time you file a report in this forum, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you leave in the tags (2 users want the article merged, but the merge tag is gone, a 3rd user notes the content fork, but the CF tag is gone, 2 sections are blatant OR, but the OR tag is gone, and all the cn tags are gone) or at least restore the pre-EW version, rather than locking in epf's version? They only "compromised" on the section that contradicted their POV. — kwami (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources I use, the studies themselves, do not support your position. As for OR, there is no OR in the article, as everything is taken from the content of the studies, which clearly differentiate between Papuan and Austronesian groups in Melanesia, and discuss their cultural, historical, linguistic and geographic differences, before also discussing their genetic differences. Epf2018 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then you still need to ref the sources. That's why I tagged so much of the article as 'citation-needed', so you would know exactly what needed to be done. A bunch of unattributed claims is indistinguishable from OR. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're both experienced editors. The fact that the article has been protected should show you that discussion needs to take place. You both need to brush up on WP:OWN then step back and actually participate in a discussion and allow consensus to guide further edits to the article, else you're likely to end up either back here and/or blocked. This discussion here is over - move the discussion to the talk page where it needs to be. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And about either restoring the tags, which per WP conventions should not be summarily deleted, or restoring the article to what it was before the dispute, rather than favoring one of the disputants? — kwami (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami, you're continuing the discussion here and on my talk page, when you should be discussing the issues on article talk. The recent move should be agreed upon or reverted before starting a merge discussion; otherwise you're going to cause more confusion. The discussion here has been resolved, so please continue on article talk. SarahSV (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:75.135.117.109 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked by )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893528114 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893527951 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893527763 by ReclinerOfMars (talk)"
 * 4)  "Removed false information and slander."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ed and Lorraine Warren. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Ed and Lorraine Warren. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP refusing to follow WP:BRD on the page when multiple editors have reverted. WP:BLP violation claim made by IP appears to be false, as the section they are removing is sourced, thereby passing WP:BLP. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Elchubbo reported by User:fishhead2100 (Result: Warned)
FYI, this has nothing to do with me. I am just reporting the issue.

Page: User being reported: }


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) - "removed non-notable promotions" (the edit being reverted)
 * 2) - "Removing "not noteable promotions" is a matter of that editors opinion. Many of these promotions are notable for their presence on the indy scene and have/still do host many "notable" wrestlers." (First time it was reverted.  It was reverted by an IP.)
 * 3) "Wikipedia lists should only contain notable items (items with a Wikipedia page). This isn't my opinion, it's policy" (The last revert for two months)

Where the edit warring begins:


 * 1) - "WP:NOTDIRECTORY. You can't argue with policy."
 * 2) - You Don't even live In Ontario. Leave this alone or I will continue to Undo your edits. You are screwing over many feds who could use the exposure. If you continue to re-edit this page, I will contact Wiki directly to have it locked. (Elchubbo is threatening to get his way)
 * 3) - "I am leaving a more detailed message on your talk page."
 * 4) - "This is your final warning. I've tried reasoning with you on your talk page already. Respond there before reverting again or you will be blocked."
 * 1) - "This is your final warning. I've tried reasoning with you on your talk page already. Respond there before reverting again or you will be blocked."
 * 1) - "This is your final warning. I've tried reasoning with you on your talk page already. Respond there before reverting again or you will be blocked."

More reverting:


 * 1) - Your Threats don't scare me. I have already requested mediation and I have multiple accounts. As long as you keep editing this, I will keep undoing it as you are doing detrimental harm to function of this page.
 * 2) - "You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate and build an enyclopedia. It is in your best interest to communicate on your talk page and name your previously declared "multiple accounts"."

Elchubbo eventually just reverted any of NotTheFakeJTP's edits because he doesn't like him and wants to get his way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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

No attempts to resolve on talk page of the article. Told Elchubbo to stop reverting on his talk page. No response from him. Continued to revert. Take a look at the following:


 * 1) - You see that it has been apparently taken to moderation.  But he also said there are other people who are going to continue to revert if he gets blocked.  That could constitute harassment.  Regardless, the three revert rule was broken on April 16th as you can clearly see.  Elchubbo doesn't care about policy.  He just wants to get his own way.

Also would like to point this edit to my talk page out. Apologies for not filing this for myself, I've been busy all weekend.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

. Stale. Left the user a note, however, about discussing their changes and to avoid edit warring. Also cautioned them regarding their threat to meat/sock. El_C 00:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sirlanz reported by User:bacondrum (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&type=revision&diff=893399804&oldid=893399746

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402110
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402480
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402521
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402818
 * 5) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402828
 * 6) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403055
 * 7) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403069
 * 8) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403264
 * 9) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403399
 * 10) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=prev&oldid=893409662
 * 11) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893409912
 * 12) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893412050
 * 13) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893520398
 * 14) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893522273

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bacondrum#The%203RR%20rule%20(New%20Guard)
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Guard

Comments: The user has made a number of improvements, but I have contested a couple, adding citations etc, and they immediately revert back rather than take it to talk, they've taken some edits to talk now, but continued reverting before I could respond, they've made many edits and reverts with inaccurate edit description, suggesting they are tryin g to game the three revert rule. The way I read it, one editor makes an edit, if another contests the edit/s, the original editor is meant to take it to talk before reverting back again, and they are not meant to keep reverting back to their edit without discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:116.90.229.186 reported by User:CordialGreenery (Result: Proxy block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Anon user refusing to participate in talk, reverting constructive edits and ignoring consensus CordialGreenery (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This report is in retaliation for my report above. If you look at Talk:The Gulag Archipelago you will see I am very clearly participating, in fact I have left multiple comments there. As for "consensus", Cordial Greenery has none for his recent edits. I challenge CordialGreenery to provide such evidence. I await patiently.116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This report was made one minute after yours and was much more thorough. I took my time making it in order to be constructive. I'm not that fast. Don't give me too much credit. CordialGreenery (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 months as an open proxy, per tools.wmflabs.org/ipcheck. Previously blocked by User:Zzuuzz for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:73.8.85.54 reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

The editor made around 8 vandal reversals in one day, here.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ramesmurmu214 reported by User:GermanJoe (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Birsa Munda International Airport"
 * 2)  "Birsa Munda International Airport"
 * 3)  "Birsa Munda International Airport"
 * 4)  "Birsa Munda International Airport"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Birsa Munda Airport - use article talk */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Birsa Munda International Airport. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birsa_Munda_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=893587411 (name is disputed, thus the different talkpage)


 * Comments:

Repeated change of article title to a disputed version by copypaste moving. See history of Birsa Munda Airport for related name changes in the correct article version. I have started a thread at Talk:Birsa Munda Airport and asked the user to join there to no avail. Technically not the 4th revert (the 1st edit introduced the erroneous copypaste mess), but per WP:3RR it's clear that this disruptive editing won't stop without an admin looking into it. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sundeki reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: No violation)
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:

. Has all the hallmarks of a POV-pushing single-purpose account, but the first revert listed and the previous version reverted to (original addition) are the same edit. I already semiprotected the page for 2 weeks per the RfPP report. I suggest further discussion regarding the disputed addition be taken to the article talk page. I also note that the user was not informed of this report nor warned about 3RR (perhaps why those mandatory fields were left blank here). El_C 03:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I couldn't find the 3RR warning on the Twinkle interface. I would also ask you consider which version of the article you have left it as, since the current version is against consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't pick and choose the right version. El_C 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:73.8.85.54 reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Aggressive edit warring by the user, he made around 11 reversions of reversions, 8 of them in one day.

The pre-war version is this

User User:73.8.85.54 made
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6
 * 7) 7
 * 8) 8

All of them are vandal edits because 1) sources removed 2) text of the vandal contradicts those sources

Comments:


 * by . – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:75.111.203.5 reported by User:Atsme (Result: protected)
Problematic IP - see TP. Edit warring at Alligator gar: See TP of IP and other warnings from other editors in Feb & March. IP made multiple reverts and changes at Alligator gar. Does not understand some of the terminology - refused to discuss on TP. I did request semi-PP to prevent further edit warring from this IP. Atsme Talk 📧 02:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Notice of edit warring.
 * 1st comment on my TP
 * 2nd comment on my TP
 * 3rd comment on my TP
 * , please accept my apologies for the malformed report. While I saw the red notify other user notice at the top of the page, I somehow missed seeing the form itself. I try to avoid the dramah boards and 3R so I'm not well-versed in protocol. By fully protecting the article, you locked in the errors made by the IP and prevented me from easily repairing the damage. I'm surprised you didn't opt for semi-pp considering the IP has received other warnings about their behavior during the short 2+ short months they've been editing. Semi-pp would have stopped the IP's disruption, and may have even encouraged them to the TP or possibly even to register and start a dialogue instead of causing issues at a longstanding GA by introducing errors and changing context in some instances. Full PP not only prevented me, a long time content creator and GA/FA participant, from doing damage control as a watchlist steward of that GA, but you locked it down with the errors in tact. I hope you will reconsider your full PP and change it to semi. Atsme Talk 📧 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The version protected just happened to be that version at the time protection was applied. Four days is not a long time, and if the IP refuses to participate on the article talk page during which, they will forfeit their right to continue reverting to their preferred version after the protection lapses. El_C 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

. First diff listed is the original edit, not a revert. Page protected for 4 days. It's disappointing neither editor has yet to make use of the article talk page. Please do so as soon as possible. In future, please observe the assigned format as this report was malformed, with several mandatory fields missing. El_C 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RalphinSanDiego reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: 24, 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Look at the edit John ... then look at the page of the document.."
 * 2)  "unsourced information...community information for City Heights has no proper link"
 * 3)  "this is what this should look like...please see cite 3..probably your best chance at fixing this mess"
 * 4)  "This editor is horrible.  perhaps hire someone from the local area"
 * 5)  "It doesn't seem the person that just checked my edit has any clue about San Diego"
 * 6)  "Common misconception that this school is located in City Heights when it is actually located in the Talmadge community of San Diego"
 * 7)  "talmadge community link added for proper identification"
 * 1)  "Common misconception that this school is located in City Heights when it is actually located in the Talmadge community of San Diego"
 * 2)  "talmadge community link added for proper identification"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hoover High School (San Diego). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Re"
 * 3)   "/* April 2019 */"
 * 4)   "/* Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! */ new section"
 * 5)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 6)   "/* April 2019 */ re"
 * 7)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ted Williams. (TW)"
 * 8)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hoover High School (San Diego). (TW)"
 * 9)   "/* April 2019 */ re"
 * 10)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:John from Idegon. (TW)"

Pretty much his entire talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Invited user several times to start discussions on article talk page. Told them specifically what the issue was. Gave them a welcome template and a Teahouse invite. Recieved for my troubles EW and PAs. John from Idegon (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There was proper citation made and John continues to disregard the citations. I have no clue who this person is, but he appears to be from Oregon and doesn't verify the citations that I have included. I ask that this be evaluated for his removal as an administrator if he is found to be overly aggressive in his assertions towards new posters. This is no way to cultivate editors of your incorrect content. Who has all day to go back and forth with a person from another state over a high school right down the street from the house. Given my limited posting on this site, I am definitely unlikely to post again on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about winning John from Ogden. It should be about getting the right information on your site. I am not a coder nor do I care to learn to code (which is what interacting on this site is like for me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/community/profiles/pdf/cp/cpmcfull.pdf see page 106 for verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there was no edit warring, there were continuous (apparently incorrect in form) attempts at correcting erroneous content with different sources that were said to be deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

. Both users violated 3RR and both users failed to use the article talk page — I haven't decided what to do yet, but I semiprotected the page, for now. El_C 00:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 00:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (grouped somewhat logically; those with >3 reverts might be WP:GAMING of 3RR)


 * 1) (1RR violation)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


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


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * 1)
 * 2)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: any warning of the tons seen at User talk:Snooganssnoogans

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no; Snooganssnoogans always responds on the talk page in a timely manner (though it's not like Snooganssnoogans stops edit warring)

Comments: Snooganssnoogans has been reverting a lot on the article; I didn't list those times when Snooganssnoogans performed only one revert in 24 hours. Notice especially those reverts without an edit summary. If it's unclear why an edit is a revert, just click "previous edit" one or two times and you'll find the edit that was reverted by Snooganssnoogans. I believe there are only five solutions: indefinite article ban, indefinite restriction on reverting without providing an edit summary, indefinite WP:BLP ban, indefinite 0RR or indefinite block. w umbolo  ^^^  12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that the page was under 1RR. The 1RR restriction appears to have been added on 11 April, and I violated it on 20 April (I did not edit the page between those dates). I would of course never violate 1RR if I knew that the page had such restrictions, I would self-revert if I had been notified of the restriction, and I was (and am) 99% sure that any talk page discussion or RfC would go in my favor on the content dispute in question (the text is a classic case of violating WP:FRINGE), which would have obviated any need to edit-war on this (so why would I have willfully violated 1RR?). Note also that I started a talk page discussion after reverting twice (despite not knowing of the 1RR situation). It is an honest mistake that could happen to any prolific editor. What makes this so absurd is that Wumbolo himself violated 1RR on the same article, stating on 11 April, "I didn't notice the 1RR - shouldn't it be in an editnotice?" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the other edits, I strongly suggest that people read those edits, because they symptomize the kind of nonsense that has to be reverted on the Owens page (a hotbed for conspiracy theories, fringe content and falsehoods). This edit, for example, removes the BLP violation that Sarah Silverman supports MS-13, a gruesome international crime organization, yet is proudly cited by Wumbolo as an example of my edit-warring. I'm pretty sure I have on multiple occasions asked for page protections for the article for this reason. Much of the other editing on this page is in the vein, with editors scrubbing RS content, adding fringe commentary and trying to add non-RS like BreitBart to substantiate text. Of course, when that is the case, you end reverting a lot. On a related note, my 1RR violation was restoring RS text [that Wumbolo himself describes as "consensus"] that reflected the mainstream academic view on the Southern Strategy (which Owens calls a "myth"), consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policy. It is a good example of the typical kind of patrolling that one has to do on the Owens page, but which on this occasion led to a violation of 1RR because I was unaware of the restriction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we need to see diffs that are nearly a year old. The way these diffs are presented makes it very difficult to determine the edit warring issues, so I recommend they be reformatted into day or week formats. I will say that using so-so to lousy references like dailydot, dailybeast, twitter to be less than satisfactory for a AmPol BLP.--MONGO (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here we are, again, at a noticeboard report for potentially problematic edits by Snooganssnoogans at a conservative / right wing BLP article. In this particular case, however, some of the diffs go back to previous years, so taken individually, there's probably nothing to action. But taken as a whole, combined with the other reports, it still shows that Snoog (paraphrasing an admin at a previous AE) is nearly entirely focused on adding "shaming" comments in a potentially UNDUE and NPOV manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that all the complaints raised against me in a spurious ban request on 21 April related to my purported misdeeds on BLPs for liberal/left-wing politicians and pundits (Jill Stein, Seth Abramson, George Galloway, Tulsi Gabbard), which kind of flies against the narrative that this editor tries to construct of me exclusively "shaming" conservatives (also, apparently, clarifying that the Southern Strategy was a thing now amounts to "shaming"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Snooganssnoogans claims they were unaware of the 1RR on Candace Owens which was only applied on 11 April. The possible past 3RR violations from 2018 probably won't lead to any action at this board. We deal with current warring or with long-term warring that is well-documented and explained. Speaking of BLP, does anyone object to this edit in which Snoogans removes the claim that Sarah Silverman supports the MS-13 crime gang? This is one of the diffs submitted above by User:Wumbolo; it is the fourth one down in the list. How severely should we sanction Snoogans for removing a BLP violation? EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this editor is currently on the radar for many within the WP community. DN (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 893771448 by Aleenf1 (talk) This has been remove repeatedly as redundant with narrative.  The burden is on you to gain consensus to include it.  Use the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893765116 by Aleenf1 (talk) And it’s still redundant"


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


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


 * Comments:

So far, across the Olympic broadcasters list, the narrative and broadcaster are co-existing, however this person keep revert and revert to disrupt the list so far. Having explain in article's talk page and her talk page, seems she can't get it and insist on her own. No MOS support her claim. Aleen f 1 06:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: See the list List of 2012 Summer Olympics broadcasters, List of 2014 Winter Olympics broadcasters, List of 2016 Summer Olympics broadcasters and even 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics, see how the list and narrative being built before move to standalone article. --Aleen f 1 06:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is just forum shopping by an editor who wants to call the shots and refuses to gain consensus for a redundant edit. He posted at WP:ANI earlier today, and was directed to the talk page then. Now this. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * By far an editor who are want her own way and keep revert without consensus. I just want a consistency and (not) warring. --Aleen f 1 06:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

. Please work on building consensus on the article talk page, or seek dispute resolution elsewhere. El_C 14:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joel.mugabe reported by User:Uglemat (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: [link]

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

Comments:

This user is clearly not interested in following Wikipedia's rules concerning consensus. Uglemat (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's true that as a new user I have a long way in understanding all the rules, but so far, one of the crimes I am being accused of is to make a straightforward edit that I believe didn't require a consensus. I changed the title from "Rwandan genocide" to the official title being recognized by the UN "Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda". As for the rest, as long as I don't delete your sentences, but only add my sentences in order to shed more light, I still believe I don't have to ask for your permission. Joel.mugabe (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

. You do not have to ask for permission, but you do have to adhere to our rule about not exceeding four reverts per 24 hours. When in doubt, stop and ask. El_C 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:188.221.14.231 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I don't see any 'inline source' for its fanbase being quote "primarily on social media", so that's objective nonsense until cited with inarguable facts. And where did this "relative" success line come from exactly? Where's the inline source citing this show's ratings were middle of the road and "relative"? Yep, definitely going to require a citation there also. Fair is fair after all."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 893978647 by IJBall (talk) I CITED SOURCES as told. STOP."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 893940314 by IJBall (talk) There. Cited https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1FodZJiuML._SL1500_.jpg"
 * 4)  "Cited in view history"
 * 1)  "Cited in view history"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This isn't the only article they've been edit warring at. They've also edit warred at The End (Lost), as seen by the warning left them. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they are making personal attacks on the article and on their talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed – WP:NOTHERE: merits a relatively long-ish block for an IP based on the behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Celaena1 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Concensus is unreachable given the unyielding opinion of my opponent.  Please don't interfere."
 * 2)  "WP:BOLD"
 * 3)  "For the same reason as why Brenton Tarrant is named: because this is an encyclopedia and  the name is a fact."
 * 4)  "/* Suspect */"
 * 5)  "/* Suspect */"
 * 1)  "/* Suspect */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* April 2019 */ Replying to Celaena1 (using reply-link)"


 * Comments:

. The earliest diff is the original edit, not a revert (perhaps why the previous version reverted to field was left blank). Please make use of the article talk page to gather consensus for or against the changes, everyone. El_C 20:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is their first edit, then there were three reverts after it was undone, here, here, and here. The previous version is this. It takes four edits to violate 3RR, and this user did. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that's the original edit — not a revert. El_C 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , after the original edit, there were three reverts. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For a total of three reverts. El_C 21:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, you're right. I keyed in too much to the "four edits required" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Dolphin51 (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See comments.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See Comments.

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

Comments:

I initiated a Request for Comment – see Talk:George Pell. Three days before the end of the 30-day period I proposed a strategy for finalising the RfC – see my diff. No-one raised any disagreement or made any special request. After the Legobot removed the RfC template I summarised the outcome of the process (diff) and implemented the majority view by erasing the offending paragraph – my diff.

User:WWGB reverted my implementation of the majority view – see his diff, insisting that I get an impartial closer. I explained the situation – see my diff. User:WWGB replied, saying he was happy with the status quo and insisting that an independent closer must participate if any change is to be made to the article – see his diff.

A third party (User:Cunard) made a formal request for an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus achieved at the RfC. See diff.

A second time, I explained my intention to implement the majority view achieved in the RfC – diff. I did so – diff. User:WWGB has again reverted the change, saying “wait for impartial closer” – diff.

There is nothing in WP:Request for comment to support the practice of frustrating all attempts to implement the majority view achieved in an RfC by reverting and insisting that we must wait for an uninvolved editor. Dolphin ( t ) 21:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But doesn't look like a violation. Please try to reach consensus further on the article talk page, or failing that, pursue other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have provided ten diffs. Are you saying that is not enough? Dolphin ( t ) 22:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * These need to be organized in accordance with the prescribed format. El_C 22:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh come on! “Comments” is part of the template! Surely that is compatible with your prescribed format. Please don’t fabricate excuses. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 22:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you left too many mandatory fields blank. El_C 22:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not immediately but previous consensus was formed just a week earlier at Talk:Candace Owens. A few hours later a discussion was opened at Talk:Candace Owens, and MPS obviously did not engage in it.

Comments: Article has 1RR edit notice (and MPS edited the article in one of the reverts so they were aware of it), and MPS knows what edit warring is. I will also be filing a separate report against Snooganssnoogans below, who has a history of edit warring on this article and also broke 1RR. w umbolo  ^^^  11:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was actually aware this was under 1RR, and I don't edit in the topic area much so I'm less familiar with what restrictions are in force (unlike, for example, Israel/Palestine topic area which I know more about). Wumbolo has now kindly left me a notification about discretionary sanctions on my talk page, but this was after, not before, my edits to this article.


 * I haven't edited this article since, and I don't intend to -- I had already removed this article and a similar one (also about an American political figure) from my watchlist.


 * (Both of the reverts listed were more than 64 hours ago now I think.) MPS1992 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. MPS1992 says they were unaware of the 1RR restriction, and they agreed to stop editing the article after being informed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Dolphin51 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: George Pell, 12:13 21 April 2019

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

Diff of edit warring warning: diff 1, diff 2. See response: diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1, diff 2.

Comments:

I initiated a Request for Comment – see Talk:George Pell. Three days before the end of the 30-day period I proposed a strategy for finalising the RfC – see my diff. No-one raised any disagreement or made any special request. After the Legobot removed the RfC template I summarised the outcome of the process (diff) and implemented the majority view by erasing the offending paragraph – my diff.

User:WWGB reverted my implementation of the majority view – see his diff, insisting that I get an impartial closer. I explained the situation – see my diff. User:WWGB replied, saying he was happy with the status quo and insisting that an independent closer must participate if any change is to be made to the article – see his diff.

A third party (User:Cunard) made a formal request for an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus achieved at the RfC. See diff.

A second time, I explained my intention to implement the majority view achieved in the RfC – diff. I did so – diff. User:WWGB has again reverted the change, saying “wait for impartial closer” – diff.

There is nothing in WP:Request for comment to support the practice of frustrating all attempts to implement the majority view achieved in an RfC by reverting and insisting that we must wait for an uninvolved editor. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 00:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC) - I agree that this is a frivolous rational for reverting. So I have applied the edit myself. El_C 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Two reverts three days apart is not edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:C2A reported by User:Useddenim (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: I'm leaving it for now, as C2A (and now ) are messing with my talk page faster than I can keep up with.

Diffs of the user's reverts: 23/24 April

20 April
 * (signed out and made an IP edit to avoid 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Both I and another editor  (per User pages and WP:Talk page guidelines). C2A's response was "How dare you speak to me like that". Useddenim (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

. Generally, what's retained on a user talk page is at the discretion of that user, and this case is no exception. El_C 20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not understand that you cannot remove comments that are not on your talk page. Now that I understand it, I will stop doing it, so please take this report down. C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 05:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, less than 15 minutes after saying this, is messing with my talk page again:,   & . Useddenim (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's over with now. El_C 00:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It will be archived automatically. El_C 05:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Phew. C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 05:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Still though, Useddenim was assuming bad faith and talking to me like he was my boss. C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 05:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If I may respond as I was mentioned here without any formal notice... accused me of possible article ownership here:. I gave a warning on their talk-page here: on top of warnings already issued regarding assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That warning seems excessive — an instance of not assuming good faith may be irritating, but is not grounds for a block. I think a personal message would have been more productive than a final-warning uw-template4, and would have been indicative of greater moderation. I suggest both of you work on de-escalating by sticking to the content on the article talk page. El_C 00:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2A01:4C8:1F:BBF4:D860:8F9A:B08A:6E10 reported by User:Meters (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Factual and sourced material restored - now the censors have stopped even trying to present arguments.  They know they've lost."
 * 2)  "What is your argument for censoring factual sourced material?  You don't have one do you.  So there's nothing to talk about.  You're wrong.  End of discussion."
 * 3)  ""and definitely not needed in the lead."  In your opinion.  However, since the material is factual and sourced, your opinion doesn't mattwer."
 * 4)  "It's accurate and sourced.  So it is appropriate.  Your argument is an obvious example of WP:unencyclopedic"
 * 5)  "Restored factually accurate and sourced content"


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

IP has not started discussion, and none of the three editors who have undone the IP have bothered. I can only speak for myself, but this does not appear to be good faith editing for which a talk page discussion will be of any use.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:

POV version of events being inserted into lead. Material is covered at length,m and neutrally in the body of the article Meters (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Just for the general disruption of edit warring on this very board. I didn't even see the report, or likely the block would be longer. El_C 23:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:The Diaz reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894245717 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Reverting as per example 7 of WP:NOT3RR and WP:BRD. You gotta do better than that."
 * 2)  "(Reverting as per example 7 of WP:NOT3RR and WP:BRD) No, we have not "been there, done that". This contentious label was added without consensus and needs to be discussed on the talk page."
 * 3)  "The "neo-Nazi" label definitely needs consensus"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 1RR */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 1RR */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Survey */"
 * 2)   "/* RfC: Neo-Nazi label */"
 * 3)   "/* RfC: Neo-Nazi label */"


 * Comments:

User has reverted three times on an article with a 1RR restriction; their edit summaries claim the BLP exemption, but the material in question is not unsourced or poorly sourced and thus is not exempt - multiple reliable sources in the article link the subject to neo-Nazism. They have made no attempt to explain their edits on the talk page (throwing up a blank RFC template isn't an explanation). User was asked to self-revert but has not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

. In this instance, 1RR exemption does not apply, as there are, indeed, numerous sources that support the assertion contained in the contested addition and it is, in fact, a matter of debate (i.e. content dispute) whether the definition applies in reality. Which is to say, that is a matter for consensus. The safe way would have been to self-revert and seek clarifications first, and then and only then, if exemption is established, revert back. El_C 23:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:82.132.222.100 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894269513 by Ifnord (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 894268968 by Captainllama (talk) rv vandalism. If you were not vandalising, you'd give a reason for undoing the edit."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894268201 by Adam9007 (talk) rv ever more stupid vandalism. Are you illiterate and thus unable to read edit summaries, or just having fun trolling?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 894267591 by Adam9007 (talk) rv idiotic vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 894266657 by Jack90s15 (talk) rv vandalism"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP user has persistently removed content without explanation, calling attempts to revert their efforts "vandalism" and "trolling". They have not made any effort to discuss, despite warnings. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  19:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I left an edit summary. Nobody who is reverting has given any explanation for doing so. Thus, it appears to be simple vandalism. 82.132.222.100 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7D:7EBF:9000:ACB7:1958:8F9F:BD23 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on Runshaw College. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Runshaw College. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User, plus another IP who is almost certainly the same human, is edit-warring to add the unreferenced name of a non-notable "comedian" to the notable-alumni section. I have added personal addenda to the templated warnings explaining that it is not appropriate to add random non-notables to these lists and I suspect this IP user doesn't know about talk pages. I'm at 3 reverts myself and am thus turning the problem over. Thanks.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:emijrp reported by User:174.151.164.174 (Result: 24 hours, both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user frequently seems to add a controversial source claiming that Some "40,000 people have died because of U.S. before going on a left-wing POV rant accusing the U.S. of committing crimes, I myself as well as another user have tried clarifying to contributor that the source is not in neutral POV, like what articles and claims are supposed to be in, but it seems to fall on deaf ears, and the user keeps trying to re-add the information whilst disregarding WP:3RR. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 17:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:98.67.50.201 reported by User:Ostealthy (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:There have been many interspersed updates to this page because the player in question was recently drafted in the NFL Draft

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:

. El_C 18:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Afg96 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: No violation 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894394485 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Thomas.W is wrong. He is putting his own bias opinion into this. He says that those institutions were founded as madrasahs but he is factually wrong because they were degree granting institutions for both religious and non religious sciences that is why Guinness Book of Record recognized it as such so did Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact his comment is laughable"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 894391468 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894390343 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
 * 4)  "The university is not the oldest university in the world. The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco which was recognized by the Guinness Book of Records http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-university"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Not the oldest university? */ Re. User:Afg96"


 * Comments:

Conyinuing removing of sourced material that has been the subject of many years' consensus and discussion. There is no point in participating in—or even starting—a talk page discussion if one continues to edit-war with the stated belief that everyone else is simply wrong and biased. Classic ethnocentric POV pushing, I fear. —— SerialNumber  54129  16:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Ah, we've moved on from edit-warring and taken up insults now, it seems. —— SerialNumber  54129  17:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

. The earliest diff listed is not a revert but the original addition (Previous version reverted to field was left blank — that's where that diff should have gone). Left the user a warning about personal attacks, however. El_C 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

. Since the user made a fourth revert and another personal attack, they have been blocked accordingly. El_C 19:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:82.132.222.100 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894270196 by Captainllama (talk) go on then. You have not given a reason for reverting"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 894269700 by Captainllama (talk) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of data"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894269513 by Ifnord (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 894268968 by Captainllama (talk) rv vandalism. If you were not vandalising, you'd give a reason for undoing the edit."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 894268201 by Adam9007 (talk) rv ever more stupid vandalism. Are you illiterate and thus unable to read edit summaries, or just having fun trolling?"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 894267591 by Adam9007 (talk) rv idiotic vandalism"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 894266657 by Jack90s15 (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 894254350 by Adam9007 (talk) why lie?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on HM Fort Roughs:. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on HM Fort Roughs. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 31 hours by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dollars to donuts this is WP:BKFIP. Their smugness knows no parallel.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:184.155.121.120 reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   01:23, April 28, 2019‎  Undid revision 894456414 by CataracticPlanets
 * 2)   01:35, April 28, 2019‎  Undid revision 894459948 by Carl Tristan Orense
 * 3)   03:18, April 28, 2019‎  Undid revision 894473767 by Calton
 * 4)   04:09, April 28, 2019‎   Undid revision 894474818 by Calton

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 00:53, April 28, 2019‎ CataracticPlanets talk contribs‎ 989 bytes +989‎  General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Hate group.
 * 01:24, April 28, 2019‎ Carl Tristan Orense talk contribs‎ 1,812 bytes +823‎  Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Hate group.
 * 03:23, April 28, 2019‎ Calton talk contribs‎ 3,528 bytes +1,716‎  Warning: Edit warring on Hate group.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hate_group. Editor makes demands while still edit-warring to include the content.

Comments:

Edit-warring against three editors. Calton &#124; Talk 04:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 04:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:CF:4780:14C8:CD6E:9EA9:EB3:B2CA reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added factual truth."
 * 2)  "Added content that’s factual. PLEASE stop deleting history. Wikipedia is supposed to be truthful."
 * 3)  "Actual facts from 1989. Please don’t delete history."
 * 1)  "Actual facts from 1989. Please don’t delete history."


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


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 05:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.37.95 reported by User:Creffett (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894542983 by Creffett (talk) Don't talk cock, sing song, play mahjong."
 * 2)  "No fear, no scare, Alexbrn the white supremacist."
 * 3)  "Alexbrn, the rabies mad dog."
 * 4)  "/* Criticism */Alexbrn is sucking and blowjob disgraced Edward Ernst's dick."
 * 5)  "/* Criticism */Same criticizer."
 * 6)  "Same criticizer."
 * 7)  "+1 for the Chinese community."
 * 8)  "Return to better good. It's officially a therapy in China."
 * 9)  "/* Criticism */Rv to Alexbrn's POV edit. In good order. In good faith."
 * 10)  "Rv. to pre-Alexbrn's hijacking of this page in the good old days, before Alexbrn's obnoxious hijacking."
 * 11)  "Why Alexbrn would always carry the balls of disgraced Edzard Ernst to suck his balls and blowjob him?"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */Rv to Alexbrn's POV edit. In good order. In good faith."
 * 2)  "Rv. to pre-Alexbrn's hijacking of this page in the good old days, before Alexbrn's obnoxious hijacking."
 * 3)  "Why Alexbrn would always carry the balls of disgraced Edzard Ernst to suck his balls and blowjob him?"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is being very offensive and aggressive in edit comments creffett (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

. For many, many personal attacks. El_C 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Davey2116 reported by User:Jay D. Easy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Fix)
 * 2)  (Restore succession box)
 * 3)  (Restore succession box; clearly notable)
 * 4)  (→top: Fix; "South Bend" instead of "South Bend, Indiana", and by-pass re-direct)
 * 5)  (This way avoids the re-direct)
 * 6)  (Fixed, not sure why one editor is insisting upon this way of coding, creating a re-direct for NO reason)
 * 7)  (→top: Fix)
 * 8)  (→top: Restore standard infobox usage across Wiki)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (user talk – deleted by user)
 * 2)  (user talk)

Comments:

Davey2116 has consistently reverted easy-to-understand MOS-compliant edits, i.e. MOS:NOPIPE, WP:DONOTFIXIT, and WP:NOTBROKEN, not once clarifying their reason for doing so. Furthermore, this user was warned against disruptive editing on their talk page. However, they and subsequently posted the same warning on, further demonstrating a contentious mentality. Jay D. Easy (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty seeing an edit-war there, even a slow-burning one. Most of those edits don't seem to be reverts; and per WP:BLANKING, there's no reason not to remove such notices. Anyway— ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - Davey's talk page is still on my watchlist, since that CU incident. I notice that neither editor has ever edited the talk page in the 8 years that it's existed. That would be a better venue to hash out this dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clearly an edit war to me, but they are both equally to blame. Are we going to block both of them, or are they going to start using the talk page? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

. Discuss the dispute (if need be, seek dispute resolution), aiming at collaborative editing and avoiding edit warring— otherwise, blocks are likely to follow. El_C 19:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when is removing unreliable sources wrong? (Closed: malformed, and wrong venue)
So 7&6=thirteen and Lubbad85 seem to believe that me removing absolutely, disarmingly unreliable sources for the page of Daniella van Graas, including by not limited to “idolcelebs.com” and “abc-daytime.fandom.com” (a fan site that anyone can edit requiring no sources or verifiability, and only poorly sourced to IMDb) is “an attempt to change the outcome of the deletion discussion” (by that “logic”, adding the content in the first place did the same thing. Hypocrisy.) rather than what it actually is: restoring and maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia; despite the fact that WP:INTREF states clear as day, “One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material.” So please explain to me how removing extremely unreliable sources is wrong? It only became an “edit war” when 7&6=thirteen immediately reverted my removal of the heinously unacceptable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

El_C 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring. No violation.  Should go to article talk page.  This would be just a garden variey conent dispute, but Trillfendi has decided to act out on an AFD that isn't going his way.  WP:Boomerang.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One, I’m not a “he” (learn how to read). And two, I don’t care how the AfD is going, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’ve made mine clear from the jump. You don’t control me and I don’t control you. But completely obstructing the article by adding bs to it that under no other circumstance would be allowed isn’t going to help either. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I find this alarming. Trillfendi is out of line on this issue. Trillfendi has become enraged by other Wikipedians attempting to improve an article that Trillfendi wants deleted. I have made one revert of Trillfendi as a reaction to Trillfendi's repeated reverts on the article. Trillfendi has been WP:TENDENTIOUS and this escalation is a perfect example. I believe that Trillfendi made three reverts. I have asked Trillfendi should take a step back from this anger.  Lubbad85   (<b style="color:#060">☎</b>) 21:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it enragement to point out right and wrong? How is inclusion of contentious, extremely poor sources improvement of an article in any case? And how can you even tell my “mood” across an Internet screen? (I’m as calm as a feather over here). Since when does anyone have emotional stake here? Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, you may wish to take this to RSN. Also, please stop edit warring against multiple editors. El_C 21:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't call Trillfendi by any pronoun. This is just another contentious extension of the AFD, in another forum yet.
 * Nevertheless, I apparently did use the word "His". Perhaps I wrongfully assumed this was a TMTH behavior that caused this misunderstanding. Apparently I was wrong. I apologize for that misapprehension.
 * I was unaware of her user page, and I won't make that mistake again. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn’t an extension of an AfD that will likely end any day this week, it simply makes zero sense to think the policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." is affront on you. WP:RS already says if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. But what do I know. Trillfendi (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Closed. As a completely uninvolved editor, though, some actually decent sources would be good for that article. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is less than a garbage source and should be removed on sight. As is this and this. Why are we adding this to a BLP to begin with?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazing how when I said the exactly thing I was “angry”, “acting out”, and “alarming.” It must not be so crazy after all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:CH-BUESI reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "adding work and five sources for the series Shackleton, which clearly does exist, really trying here"
 * 2)  "it's called Shackleton, i wouldn''t be adding it otherwise, https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Shackleton-Complete-DVD-David-Schofield/dp/B01N7K6WHM/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=shackleton&qid=1556557967&s=gateway&sr=8-7 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086295/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_3"
 * 3)  "sourced"


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


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


 * Comments:

See discussion on my talk page as well as their own - repeatedly warned about using unreliable sources (or no sources) and has continued to make these edits which cannot be verified. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. I am really trying very hard to add sources and have not added an identical edit twice (let alone three times) without adding a further source. I thought that the idea is to help build pages together. It would make more sense to help people, rather than to try to break someone down. CH-BUESI (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * as a sock of User:Dopenguins. Favonian (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Alwaysrightman reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: one week)
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:

WP:SPA account edit-warring non-neutral terminology and non-encyclopedic tone into the article that promotes the subject. Reverted by four different editors over the last day or so. This was his response to the discussion on the talk page:. The world championship is currently under way and the snooker project has its hands full without having to deal with this guff. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:109.153.226.127 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894747426 by DVdm (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 894747213 by DVdm (talk)"
 * 3)  "neither english variant is preferred so why change"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 894737345 by DVdm (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See user's talk page


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


 * Comments:

See user talk page for warnings. Refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ah, you beat me to it. I was creating a similar report here. Thanks. I will revert to original if not already done. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess I had the quicker draw. Glad I could be of service though. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zvikorn reported by User:GB fan (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894837294 by GB fan (talk) not my opinion. just the truth"
 * 2)  "ADDED RUBBER BAND BALL WIZTH TWO ARTICLES"
 * 3)  "No one will write about him NOT being banned. His not banned. See his youtube channel."
 * 4)  "added sources for two sentences in baseball collection"
 * 5)  "THE SOURCE IS HIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL. HE HAS MADE A VIDEO AT ALL 30 STADIUMS THIS SEASON. AGAIN, ANY SOURCE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS FALSE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WIKIPEDIA. LINK TO CHANNEL FOR YOU: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO_Ro3UG5WPqwtRjzgBQugQ"
 * 6)  "/* Personal Life */"
 * 7)  "/* Personal Life */ added more refrences!!!!!"
 * 8)  "/* Personal Life */"
 * 9)  "removed pushing kids (I put a quote from on the talk page) and I removed banned from stadiums because its false the source is his yt channel he has done videos at all 30 of them THIS SEASOn"
 * 10)  "the criticism sentence stayed but the other two are simply not true."
 * 11)  "band ball"
 * 12)  "re wrote criticism again because soome it it is not true."
 * 1)  "the criticism sentence stayed but the other two are simply not true."
 * 2)  "band ball"
 * 3)  "re wrote criticism again because soome it it is not true."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Reason for adding my content */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Reason for adding my content */ unsigned"
 * 3)   "try the unsigned again"
 * 4)   "/* Reason for adding my content */ re"
 * 5)   "/* Reason for adding my content */ re"
 * 6)   "/* Reason for adding my content */ re"


 * Comments:

. El_C 10:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:GB fan reported by User:zvikorn (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

See page history: []
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

See page history for edit summaries and talk page [] []
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have written the report this way because I do not know how to get the specific revisions. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Going back and looking it looks like I did break 3RR. I can not go back and fix it as my last revert has was reverted by zvikorn. ~ GB fan 10:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Yes you did. I was going to decline the report above because it is not fair to block one party. But User:El C was too quick! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We do have, Martin, exactly for those situations. Feel free to over-rule my warning and just issue a block to GB Fan, too — I have no objection. My closing is a bit borderline. El_C 10:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection either. I broke 3RR and freely admit it.  I forgot about yesterday's revert.  If it is fair then block me also.  ~ GB fan 10:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

. I'll take into account you wanting to self-revert, even though you can't. But it won't work (at least not with me) a second time. So, please be more careful in the future. El_C 10:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:The Master 2121 reported by User:PureRED (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894900722 by Ponyo (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894900385 by MorrowStravis (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 894857608 by Rubbish computer (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 894765619 by MorrowStravis (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 8)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 894753286 by MorrowStravis (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894753286 by MorrowStravis (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Young Justice: Outsiders."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New release dates */ Re"


 * Comments:

User is an an edit war regarding dates on an upcoming episode of a show. Has been warned on their page twice (the editor removed one warning from their talk page). Pure RED &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 18:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User seems to be unimpressed, Special:Diff/894902215. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User may be misunderstanding the situation and has started a second discussion on my talk page. We're getting somewhere. Special:Diff/894904160 Replying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr Minnesota reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Active discussions on the talkpage of the article:

Comments:

The user is also editing other Wikipedia pages that link to Bde Maka Ska with no regard to naming conventions of article pages per Naming conventions (geographic names), which I mentioned in the summary of edits the user then reverted.  on camera  16:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

. User was not informed about the 3 revert rule, specifically. Now they are duly warned and so on. El_C 23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MarchOrDie reported by User:Eng.M.Bandara (Result: Warned No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  7 hours later
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

The article 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings is subject to active community authorised discretionary sanctions WP:GS/ISIL  -- Eng. M.Bandara <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:Black">-Talk  20:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

. No block because the DS warning template was not applied to the user's talk page to inform them of the discretionary sanctions. Now they are duly warned and so on. El_C 23:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well sure no block as the second revert was not of a logged in user. I think a word with the op is in order as we do not encourage communication by template and no attempt was made to discuss before reporting at two different noticeboards, a considerable waste of volunteers' time, especially as there was no violation. MarchOrDie (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

. Yes, you are right. I missed that. My bad. El_C 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tdoumc reported by User:Calton (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)    22:24, April 29, 2019‎
 * 2)   23:49, April 29, 2019
 * 3)   12:02, April 30, 2019‎
 * 4)   16:00, April 30, 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 22:36, April 29, 2019‎ Velella  copy vio
 * 00:26, April 30, 2019‎ Calton Notice: Avoiding copyright problems on Income tax.
 * 14:46, April 30, 2019‎ Calton ‎Wikipedia and copyright

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not gone to the talk page, responded on their user talk page, or even used edit summaries.

Comments:

Editor keeps readding the same copyright violations/plagiarized text, despite three warnings on their talk page. So far, they haven't responded AT ALL: they've not gone to the talk page, responded on their user talk page, or even used edit summaries to explain themselves. Calton &#124; Talk 00:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

. User violated 3RR (not warned about, however) and has engaged in repeated copyrights violations (warned about). Their lack of communication is troubling. El_C 00:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

New editor edit warring at Guadalcanal Campaign (Result: Protected)
is editing Guadalcanal Campaign, a featured article for over a decade, to convert the date format to month-day-year. d-m-y is used by the US military as well as much of the Anglosphere, and is consistently used in WP's military articles including 's featured topic covering this and related articles. The user has been asked to stop, without effect. Kablammo (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverted the change to stable version, made a note on talk and to Watson. Done? cygnis insignis 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * . El_C 18:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Oon835 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * : Formally warned for edit warring
 * : Follow-up warning
 * : "Last warning"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * : Request at one of the edit-warred articles which was ignored


 * Comments:

User was informally warned about plagiarism and was requested to start discussions instead of mass-adding 50k+ bytes of information. The user was then formally warned for edit warring 6 days ago for continued edit warring across these articles: Ultraman Ace, Ultraman Leo, Ultraman Mebius, Ultraman Taro, Ultraman Cosmos vs. Ultraman Justice: The Final Battle‎, Ultraman Cosmos 2: The Blue Planet, Ultraman Cosmos: The First Contact, List of Ultraman Leo characters, List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters, and List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters (I believe there were a few others). There was also an SPI opened against the user 5 days ago for continued edit warring via IPs under the mistaken assumption that IP sockpuppetry fell under CU actions. After the latest continuation of edit warring, the user clearly demonstrates a long-term habit of edit-warring despite warnings and promises to stop which resulted in a month-long series of disruptions across dozens of articles. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * . El_C 19:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added the diffs after you already blocked the user due to an edit conflict. Thanks for the quick response! — MarkH21 (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:82.41.132.252 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

. Falls short of 3RR (by half) — also, too many mandatory fields were left blank. El_C 23:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:A44D:9200:913B:4FF1:5593:ECFF reported by User:Bakazaka (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) after being reverted the first time:
 * 2) after being reverted the second time:
 * 3) After an EW warning and saying they would be more careful with BLP violations, switched to  (same reverts, same geolocation):
 * 4) Again as 45.50.57.253:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. After IPv4 resumed multiple reverts,.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * IPv4 now also reverting at Open letter after IPv6 was previously reverted on BLP grounds. Bakazaka (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * New IPv6, obviously same user, resuming separate edit-warring over categories: Bakazaka (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess this depends on how confident we are that the two IP addresses are used by the same user. I'd say it was not clear cut. There are overlapping edits and the IPv4 is a long term user interested in the far-right / US shootings. If they are different people, then AGAF, they may have stopped as promised. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I think it's unlikely that different users from the same geolocated area (and IPv6 prefixes) would similarly take multiple edits to restore the same excessive wording and same unreliable sources. I think it's more likely that someone is switching devices to make the same edits. If that's not convincing, okay, I got nothing else. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And again as, still trying to make sure there's enough Hitler and Nazi Party content in an article on a synagogue shooting: . Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SLinfo reported by User:SinhalaLion (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user removes my information on the grounds that my info is uncited, when it is in fact cited. Additionally, the user has been reported for edit warring in the past. I was advised to make a report here. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

. Falls short of 3RR (by half) — please stop reverting each other and address this on the article talk page. SLInfo, that also means you. El_C 02:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:2405:205:4402:7FAA:0:0:CE0:C8A4 reported by User:Masumrezarock100 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 895186409 by ZLEA (talk) here you go put the tag back"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 895186171 by Masumrezarock100 (talk) WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? THE ISSUE IS SOLVED. I ADDED RELIABLE SOURCES WHICH YOU ARE REMOVING BY REVERTING"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 895163263 by Masumrezarock100 (talk) refs were added so the tag was invalid, stop it."
 * 4)  "Stop why are you removing references"
 * 5)  "/* Television */"
 * 6)  "Clean up"
 * 1)  "/* Television */"
 * 2)  "Clean up"
 * 1)  "Clean up"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ek Bhram Sarvagun Sampanna. (Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bepannah. (Twinkle)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yeh Hai Mohabbatein. (Twinkle)"
 * 4)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Niyati Fatnani.👲"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Ek Bhram Sarvagun Sampanna.👲"


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


 * Comments:

WP:OWN behaviour. Also edit warred on multiple pages. Sincerely,    <i style="color:#087643;font-face:arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Masum Reza</i> <sup style="color:orange;">☎  18:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SteamboatPhilly reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Before Edit Warring, this user had a problem with misleading edit summaries  and NPA/AGF violations, which have continued
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Jozamba reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop with vandalism. Soccer is not used in Brazil at all. Why are you doing this? Let's stop with with this nonsense for better. Football will be here and period."
 * 2)  "Please do not revert this article. This article is right in English but in Brazil association football is called football not soccer. Please do not change it."
 * 3)  "please no soccer in this article. Flamengo is from Brazil not USA. Thank you"
 * 4)  "not soccer in this article. Flamengo is from Brazil not USA."
 * 1)  "please no soccer in this article. Flamengo is from Brazil not USA. Thank you"
 * 2)  "not soccer in this article. Flamengo is from Brazil not USA."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "unsigned"
 * 2)   "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on 1994 FIFA World Cup Final. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on Clube de Regatas do Flamengo. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Clube de Regatas do Flamengo. (TW)"
 * 5)   "unsigned and reply"
 * 6)   "/* National varieties of English */ +"
 * 7)   "/* National varieties of English */ unsigned + R"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Langvar */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Langvar */ unsigned and reply"
 * 3)   "/* Langvar */ fix diff"
 * 4)   "/* Langvar */ +"
 * 5)   "/* Langvar */ R"
 * 6)   "/* Langvar */ r"
 * 7)   "/* Langvar */ clarify"


 * Comments:

Editor also stated "I will no longer edit there" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=895073043&oldid=895043613 Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor was blocked for 24 hours by Mfield for "offensive comments targetted at another editor", but this is a separate issue. I'm not sure if I'm that other user, and suggesting that my LangVar reverts were actually vandalism (or other comments) but there was also a deletion of an offensive comment on the editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No further edits have been made since block has expired. If problems resume, please post back. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ujujuj3654 reported by User:Willsome429 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 895004631 by Willsome429 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 894994944 by Andrewlumbo21 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 894957492 by Spychicken (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 894909279 by Champ1SSR (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 894908877 by Champ1SSR (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 894900780 by Spychicken (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 894900780 by Spychicken (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series. (TW)"
 * 2)   Specific warning about 3RR left after this case was filed


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


 * Comments:

Continues to edit war without explanation even after being invited to talk page discussion  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 19:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User had not specifically been warned about 3RR. I just warned them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite a 3RR violation, but user is being disruptive. Reverting without giving any rationale. Editor has been here since Feb 2018 and never posted on a talk page. I think a block may be needed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already decided that there was no 3RR violation and yet you blocked for a 3RR violation, which seems a little odd. I do not oppose a block for other reasons, but I think your block summary is incorrect. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even seen this report tbh, i was responding to a separate report at AIV. I tagged it as edit warring as it appeared to be that from a glance at the history, not having seen this. Mfield (Oi!) 22:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:121.218.183.137 reported by User:Kerry Raymond (Result: Comment.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

A series of IP edits (IP address keeps changing) all adding the same incorrect information to the article. It may be good faith but my attempts to communicate with them via edit summary and user talk pages have been in vain. The erroneous info keeps getting added. Could we semi-protect the page? Or some other solution. Thanks Kerry (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like page protection is more appropriate for this situation, which can be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any reason to redirect to RFPP, we routinely protect pages here as the result of edit wars. We even have for that purpose... --Chris (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the request. You are correct, of course.  Thanks. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:De Boni 2007 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: No 3RR violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The first diff was the original introduction of the contested material and was not within 24 hours of the other diffs. Having said that, has not made any attempt to engage in discussion, while  has. De Boni 2007 is advised that continuing to try to introduce the contested material without discussion is grounds for a block. --Chris (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You did not properly notify De Boni 2007 that they are mentioned on this board. I will rectify this mistake. In the future, you must notify users who you report here as per the noticeboard instructions. --Chris (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are right, I forgot to notify them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Vnkd reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 895661186 by Samf4u (talk)Can you challange those points about every single action the AA-1 prototype did on the F-35 page then?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 895660769 by Samf4u (talk)again do you even read my comments? why don'y you challange the date when the AA-1 F-35 prototype taxied?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 895659955 by MilborneOne (talk)tell me a single reason why we need to know what the AA-1 F-35 prototype did but we cannot know these two SPECIFIC"
 * 4)  "/* India */ As proven by all other restores that were done, this is no less important than all the other contents that are listed. It has to stay there as it has to stay there whatever detail the AA-1 F-35 prototype did. Over there things like first time it taxied with a specific weapon is important. Why should a aerial engagement removed then???"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

They received a 3RR-warning on 23 April (since removed, like all other warnings they get...), so they're well aware of the rules. They're also on a mass-blanking spree on a whole bunch of other articles (see their recent contributions), seemingly as a revenge for not getting their way on this article... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * for more disruption to make a point.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Alex-h (Result: Warned/Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:30, 5 May 2019
 * 2) 13:35, 5 May 2019
 * 3) 07:05, 5 May 2019
 * 4) 20:43, 1 May 2019
 * 5) 08:29, 1 May 2019
 * 6) 05:30, 1 May 2019
 * 7) 16:56, 30 April 2019
 * 8) 03:44, 29 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Besides ignoring talk page discussions and warnings, Kazemita1 also went against RfC consensus twice today (1 and 2), and also posted a deceitful post at WP:RSN today. Alex-h (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

— yes, I know, on the wrong version, what can I do? El_C 23:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am speechless. I posted the words of a Stanford Professor (Abbas Milani) whose scholarship and neutrality is undisputed. This is agreed upon both by WP:RSN's independent inquiry as well as admission by editors in the talk page. In the course of last few days, I conceded from adding a larger text that included several other sources to merely two lines of text that was attributed to Abbas Milani. I am being called deceitful in my using of WP:RSN. This is while the opposing party denies everyone from taking part in their inquiries from WP:RSN and uses the verdict to finalize his edit (see here & here for example). I honored every edit that was backed by WP:RSN's verdict, but Alex-h who posted this report against me did not. Moreover, Alex-h, does not take part in the discussions in the talk page and yet entitles himself to blanket reverts. I warned him of this here. As for the RfC to remove death trolls, I refer you to the new one with more editors involved the result of which is clearly in favor of my edit.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:87.126.175.254 and User:RustyBrain reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Now deleted to make a wp:POINT by new username RustyBrain, who signed all the previous unsigned talk page messages from IP 87.126.175.254
 * 5)  and again, removing the content, against consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and also

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Gravitational_lens

Comments:

Despite and after user 's constructive suggestion, the 3rd and 4th reverts were made by IP and user RustyBrain. Note that the 4th revert is technically just a pointy deletion. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Please, admins, go into the talk page, and see what liar is user. I delete animate GIF that, not only don't have reliable source, but don't have source at all. He restore it every time I delete it. This fake GIF simulation is spread by his author all over the wiki pages as he come with fake wiki accounts to do it. I repeat - this GIF no source at all!RustyBrain (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:2602:252:d91:e650:1006:1361:4bc3:27f2 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: New user, has only edited the page of a political candidate and his opponent. I’ve never filled one of these out before, apologies in advance for any errors. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You need four reverts to violate 3RR, not three. The user, however, did revert four times:


 * 1) 20:41, 5 May 2019
 * 2) 21:20, 5 May 2019
 * 3) 21:49, 5 May 2019
 * 4) 22:57, 5 May 2019
 * El_C 06:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Firooz Peyravi reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Almost all the user’s contributions constitute edit warring. Already warned that it’s unacceptable here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Resumed, aggravated with personal attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Biruni&action=history&offset=201905051814 . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Has not continued to edit war after your warning this morning. Please report back if problems resume. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At the end, – block is overdue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:207566versant reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Blocked)
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:
 * I could have explained this better, earlier, but am making a good faith effort to get the point across.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: of poorly sourced information

Comments:


 * Have attempted to implore this user to go to the talk page, to no avail. Have reached out to the user on their user page. Normally 3RR is a hard rule, but there is an exemption for BLP, which is what I have been attempting to use, to keep poorly sourced information off the page of living individual. This includes the misuse of primary sources, as is appearing here, as well as the synthesis of sources to come to an incorrect conclusion. Garuda28 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Joshua Menon reported by User:Krenair (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Came across this one while huggling, looks like the user has a history of edit warring and has resumed now their block has expired. Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 03:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * as WP:NOTHERE -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:151.251.246.231 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * -- Scott Burley (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:51.7.34.168 reported by User:Zoolver (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring by IP address. Four reverts in 24 hours removing a factual occurrence from the lead about a series of films that made the actress famous. Tried to talk to IP but they refuse to understand why their edit is disruptive and keep reverting it, even erased the three-revert rule warning from their talk page. IP has the same behavior in other articles and clearly has the intention to cause trouble. Often makes personal attacks and xenophobic remarks on their edit summary. See their history. Zoolver (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * . "Four reverts in 24 hours" — nope. And I already told you that linking to the contributions is not enough for these sort of accusations. El_C 10:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously? how many more reverts are necessary? And didn't you say that "the source does seem to allude that she achieved her fame with those films"? so the guy erases/reverts that portion several times and that's not counted as edit warring?


 * 09:10, 2 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎  vague and subjective -> precise and objective''  - (the reason in the edit summary is funny as they removed a well-known sourced fact from the lead and thought their edit was better. Articles about actors always have "known for/famous for" in the lead, but User:51.7.34.168 thinks this is wrong.)
 * 08:00, 3 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎ Undid revision 895245352
 * 06:44, 4 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎  Undid revision 895398510
 * 09:07, 4 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,066 bytes -39‎  Undid revision 895441907
 * 08:37, 5 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,104 bytes -53

Blanked the talk page and continued to revert the article minutes later, but no violation according to :
 * 08:35, 5 May 2019 diff hist -1,885‎  User talk:51.7.34.168 ‎ ←Blanked the page
 * 08:37, 5 May 2019‎ 51.7.34.168 talk‎ 31,104 bytes -53‎

I've seen users getting blocked for 3 reverts in more than 24 hours. So far there are five edits where they keep doing the same thing besides trolling on my talk page. Also, aren't admins supposed to investigate this kind of report by themselves? especialy when they come from IPs? do they need regular users to do that for them even after we provide links? Come on now, the guy has made countless edits that you can check it, all the evidence is there. I'm no admin, I can't do your job for you. But since you can't do it by yourself, I'm gonna leave a few links here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thaddeus_Vincenty&diff=prev&oldid=895389977
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noel_Kempff_Mercado_National_Park&diff=prev&oldid=895144208
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/51.7.34.168&offset=&limit=500&target=51.7.34.168

Zoolver (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reporting user has reverted four times over three days, only once leaving an edit summary. I advised them already that reverting without explanation is disruptive. I concluded, and their tone here makes it quite obvious, that they simply don't like anonymous edits. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See? User:51.7.34.168 just refuses to stop their edit warring and react by projecting their behavior onto others and keep refusing to understand why they're wrong in removing a well-known sourced fact from the lead, as it seems they didn't even bother to read the article in the first place. If I revert their useless edit again I bet I'm gonna get blocked, but they won't. Very fair. Zoolver (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything immediately troubling in those 2 edits nor the contributions overall. I suggest you both stop edit warring and pursue dispute resolution. El_C 02:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, you didn't see anything wrong in the 5 edits from their edit warring linked above, it's not a violation according to you (even though you admitted that they removed a sourced content, so which is which?), I'm not surprised you didn't see anything wrong in the IP's entire history. Did you get that User:51.7.34.168 is not interested in resolving anything and this whole thing started just because they got reverted for the first time and couldn't accept it, even after several attempts to explain why they're wrong? or the fact that they removed the 3RR warning and kept edit warring like nothing happened? What makes you thing that pursuing dispute resolution with this user will fix anything if the admins don't take any action? I'd appreciate the opinion of another unbiased admin. Zoolver (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Next time, don't file a report that falsely claims "four reverts in 24 hours." Also, the user is allowed to remove messages from their talk page — it means they read them. Besides that, you failed to demonstrate anything other than an edit dispute where both users had yet to use the article talk page even once. But another admin is free to look into this, as they do with any report I evaluate here and elsewhere. El_C 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Geraldo_Perez reported by User:Rorysolomon (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reverted 1 edit by Rorysolomon: WP:3RRNO #7 "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy"
 * 2)  Reverted 1 edit by Rorysolomon: WP:3RRNO #7 "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy"
 * 3)  Reverted 1 edit by Rorysolomon (talk): No its not - take it to the talk page - sources are speculating, we don't do that
 * 4)  Reverted 1 edit by Rorysolomon (talk): Still rumor and speculation and somewhat defamatory - see talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The violating user is clearly aware of 3RR as they mentioned WP:3RRNO in two of their comments. But in addition to that, I warned them that another revert would put them in violation of 3RR in a comment here "Restoring facts that are neither libelous nor biased, are amply sourced, and are presented in objective NPOV. Please do not revert again or you will be in violation of 3RR"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In response to the user's comments, I have made several adjustments to my edit to make sure it is NPOV. However they continue to revert the entire thing, copy/pasting the same comment twice now.

Rorysolomon (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Requests to move discussion to talk page where an existing discussion of the issue already exists were ignored until the last revert. This information is defamatory as written and I removed it per WP:3RRNO #7. There are very serious unsubstantiated accusations of sexual impropriety being made about the subject of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the already existing discussion on the talk page and the contentious aspects of the content that Rorysolomon added, I think Geraldo Perez's reliance on WP:3RRNO#7 was quite valid so only 2 reversions really occurred. On the other hand, Rorysolomon has still made at least 3. When his initial edit restoring the contentious material was reverted, he should have gone to the talk page himself and sought consensus to restore the content instead of continually forcing it back into the article. Geraldo Perez shouldn't have had to continually remove the contentious content. My opinion is that the blame here is with Rorysolomon. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:3RRNO#7 does not apply here as my edits are unbiased (I mention multiple sides of the story), amply sourced (citing NY Times and Washington Post), and not libelous, as I do not present any false statements as true or make claims that would harm any individual's reputation. My edits do not make "unsubstantiated accusations", but rather include objective discussion of reportage in reliable newspapers about the fact of a controversy in this person's biography. Since WP:3RRNO#7 does not apply, GeraldoPerez has made 4 reverts within 24 hours. Rorysolomon (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being unbiased and amply sourced doesn't stop something being contentious and contentious it is so WP:3RRNO#7 does indeed apply. You have reverted at least 3 times instead of discussing edits that are clearly opposed and that is edit-warring. Next. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But being contentious is not the criteria of WP:3RRNO#7. And rightfully so – imagine how boring and inaccurate Wikipedia would be with a total absence of contentious material! Rather, WP:3RRNO#7 makes an exemption for material that is "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced." Which of those criteria apply to my edits? As I see it, my additions are amply sourced, unbiased, and not libelous as they do not make accusations but rather objectively state the existence of a controversy. Rorysolomon (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * : The material is contentious and poorly-sourced enough that WP:3RRNO#7 seems applicable: a few of the sources used fail WP:RS or the content is mischaracterized (which was conceded on the talk page). I would strongly advise all parties to work together on the talk page to rewrite this section and reintroduce it to the article only after consensus is reached.  --Chris (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple IPs reported by User:Crazycomputers (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: Multiple IPs, suspect they are the same user.



Previous version reverted to: Multiple versions that are all substantively the same

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow-ish edit war by multiple IPs, likely the same user. I've previously blocked myself, but I've reverted the article myself a few times since then so I don't feel comfortable enacting sanctions or protecting the page since I'm premusably now a party to the dispute. I request semiprotection of the article until the anon editor is willing to discuss on the talk page. --Chris (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

. Semi for 3 months. El_C 19:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:109.152.211.128 reported by User:Kante4 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "nope"
 * 2)  "nope"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 895851561 by Jaellee (talk)"
 * 4)  "nope"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Leroy Sané. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring and going against consensus, piping teams wrong. Continues to revert with "nope" as the edit summary and "i do not follow it" when confronting with the essay/consensus Kante4 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . El_C 22:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Banana Republic reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Not 3RR, but persistent edit warring by BR to remove sourced material about Mack's marriage from the page, against consensus. First attempted to scrub the info from the legal section (where it is mentioned as a part of her legal troubles), then moved to removing it from the 'Personal Life' section. Ignored multiple requests to follow BRD and discuss on talkpage. I had to initiate the talkpage conversation about it, and while BR has finally engaged, they also reverted again to their preferred version. This edit summary indicates BR is well aware their edits aren't supported by policy, but decided to revert anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG. It certainly seems to me that are the edit warriors in this case. They went ahead and reverted two edits  and . They don't participate in discussions for days, and then complain that while they are away and not participating in the discussion, the edit goes against their wishes.
 * On the issues themselves, I believe are wrong on both edits
 * They insist on duplicating material in two sections
 * They insist on calling the BLP a "German-born American actress" in the lead which could be deceptive since there is no evidence that she spent any time in Germany after the birth.
 * Banana Republic (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't participate in discussions for days, and then complain that while they are away and not discussion the edit goes against their wishes. What discussion? You didn't perform any discussion, despite numerous requests to open a talkpage discussion, and two attempts to communicate on your talkpage. What discussion went against my "wishes"? There are only your poorly-justified reversions.
 * They insist on calling the BLP a "German-born American actress" in the lead which could be deceptive since there is no evidence that she spent any time in Germany after the birth. Are you taking responsibility for this edit? Are you claiming that you have been editing under another username? FWIW, while this noticeboard is not for content, the talkpage history makes clear "German-born American" was specifically used because a number of editors argued (and changed) her designation inappropriately to "German actress". This is why opening discussions on the talkpage is critical when your edits are challenged. Grandpallama (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not taking responsibility for the edits by nor by . All I am saying is that you are the one who is guilty of edit warring. Not me. Banana Republic (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself pretty much immediately after making my edit, as I noticed that the same edit had already been reverted previously, with the reason being a lack of consensus, which is a fair reason. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment until an admin takes a look at things and weighs in, but you're going to have a difficult time making the case that I've been edit warring when my reverts have been of unexplained removal of material or (when edit summaries are present) have included calls for talkpage discussion and consensus-building. That is the opposite of edit warring, and you have yet to provide a single explanation as to why you continued to try to force in your edits while ignoring requests for discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

. Stale. El_C 19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Expand: further article talk page participation, perhaps an RfC or other forms of dispute resolution, would be the way to go here. El_C 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:203.221.204.191 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/894025401
 * 2) Special:Diff/894042370
 * 3) Special:Diff/894695542
 * 4) Special:Diff/894829665
 * 5) Special:Diff/895327684
 * 6) Special:Diff/895554349
 * 7)  "Very mindful of edit warring, although the content itself is not in contention and is properly referenced - User:Bilby would rather see the content not be given any prominence and buried, so I've made every effort to make it no more prominent than anyone else with alleged accusations, an h3 seems most appropriate. See Talk page for discussion on this."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:Diff/895556696


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Special:Diff/836797179 (old; yes, this is a long-term conflict)
 * Special:Diff/895442749 (recent)
 * Special:Diff/895443048 (recent)


 * Comments:

After a clear "final warning" with a discretionary sanctions notice on their user talk page, and without any further edit to the article talk page, the user continues reverting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:NathanHollister reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Page protected for 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 895959573 by Bilorv (talk) Again, the SPLC does not have MGTOW on their list of hate groups. You are putting words into their mouth"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 895959247 by Jorm (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 895958827 by Jorm (talk) You can't cite improperly sourced material on an encyclopedia. If 90% of the editors on the holocaust page believe it was justified, that doesn't make it so."
 * 4)  "/* Reception */ Corrected improperly sourced material. No matter your personal opinion, the SPLC DOES NOT say MGTOW is a hate group. The source does not say what you say it says. You can't just make things up."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning and notification of 3RR was given in the edit summary in Jorm's reversion here. Talk page warning was also given at 15:05, 15:07 and 15:11 here. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * without prejudice: Nathan has opened a DR thread about this dispute. I suggest waiting to see where that goes; as long as they do not revert the page again, a block would impede discussion. I do not object to the original reporter removing the result in this section heading and adding more evidence if Nathan reverts again. --Chris (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * while dispute resolution is ongoing due to some form of puppetry continuing the edit war. --Chris (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:NathanHollister reported by User:Jorm (Result: Page protected for 7 days)
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:

This article gets a lot of drive-by traffic from the gamergate/men's rights activist crowd. Traffic has upticked. NathanHollister is not listening to anyone. --Jorm (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (Copying my response from the below thread, I did not notice there was a second report. --Chris (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)) without prejudice: Nathan has opened a DR thread about this dispute. I suggest waiting to see where that goes; as long as they do not revert the page again, a block would impede discussion. I do not object to the original reporter removing the result in this section heading and adding more evidence if Nathan reverts again. --Chris (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is going to be a waste of good editor time.--Jorm (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * while dispute resolution is ongoing due to some form of puppetry continuing the edit war. --Chris (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:SteamboatPhilly (Result: OP blocked)
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:

Editor is adding a web forum as a source for a statement that John M. Ford participated in online discussions. Obviously an open web forum is not a reliable source. In addition, after my edits of "his" John Ford article, the editor began stalking my edit history and making reversions to my other edits on pages he has never edited before, see Jason Momoa, PureScript, Between the Lions. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply - the above is a malformed and should not under any circumstances be actioned. SteamboatPhilly did not even place the required notices! More substantively, I would note the following:


 * 1. There was no violation of 3RR on my part, as the diffs SteamboatPhilly has provided (and the page history) show. I also do not "own" the article in any way; it only came to my attention through a pattern of content removal by SteamboatPhilly that initially culminated in their unsuccessful AfD nomination of the widow of this article's subject, John M Ford.
 * 2. Some of the provided diffs show me adding a reliable self-published source to support the rest of the stable version of the article; this source is compliant to WP:SPS as explained in the Talk page here. I never violated 3RR in doing so, and per BRD I was always restoring the stable version of the article with improved citations.
 * 3. I most certainly did not add a "web forum"" as a source. Making Light is not a "webforum " any way - it is a SPS of long standing that has legitimately been used in all versions of this non-BLP article. I did not add this source, which has been present in all versions of the article, even ones SteamboatPhilly reverted to. I simply cited it after SteamboatPhilly repeatedly removed  an uncontroversial statement from the lede, since it made that fairly obvious point (that Ford participated in online discussions) without SYNTH or OR. SteamboatPhilly nevertheless continued to do so . This was the reason I added a citation from a knowledgeable SPS the article already uses.
 * 4. SteamboatPhilly also raises issues of Wikistalking. I have CIR concerns about their comprehension of [[WP:SPS our policy on the use of self-published sources] and their willingness to follow BRD; they have already been blocked once for edit warring the John M. Ford article. I only looked at recent edits on other pages and only reverted a tiny number, mostly because of misleading edit summaries. I also offered what was intended as a thoughtful and polite explanation to SteamboatPhilly at the Teahouse, to which this mistaken 3RR filing appears to be their response.

I am not seeking any sanction of SteamboatPhilly at this time, but it would be great if others could keep an eye on this enthusiastic but somewhat misguided new editor. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed The filing party has been blocked by a checkuser as a sock of a banned user. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Griffdawg567 reported by User:LindsayH (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896156088 by Zaereth (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 896148843 by LindsayH (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 896127160 by BarrelProof (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Welcome! */ + comment"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 896175753 by Qual479terrace (talk) ~ This discussion should probably stay here, reverting its removal."
 * 2)   "/* Edit by Griffdawg567 */"


 * Comments:

Several editors have attempted to discuss this; now a further editor with only the sole edit has tried to remove the discussion from the talk page altogether. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

. Earliest diff looks like the original edit, not a revert, but regardless of 3RR, the edit warring, plus the disruption/vandalism on the talk page, does not look good. El_C 20:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Binit14 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 72 hours)

 * Pages: ,
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896157953 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2) Plus numerous edits on Semwal
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Semwal. (TW)"
 * 1) Plus numerous edits on Semwal
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Semwal. (TW)"
 * 1) Plus numerous edits on Semwal
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Semwal. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Semwal. (TW)"


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

This editor has been edit-warring on two articles. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Comment - I told User:Binit14 multiple times in the edit summaries and in warnings in his talk page to not include original research, unreliable blogs, spams, etc as sources in Semwal and Sarola Brahmin articles but he kept doing it. He also seems to have some kind of POV against Hatwals which he tagged for deletion despite it having 2 references. He also sent unwarranted warnings in my talkpage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He is edit warring with now See - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

. Block applied by Ohnoitsjamie. El_C 20:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:HappyINC reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please, let’s not start a edit war over this too. Made as a minor edit. how about that."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 895881894 by Electricburst1996 (talk) Where the hell else am I supposed to put this? I tried List of international Cartoon Network channels, but no! This is needed! And this is important! If I put this somewhere else, NO ONE would go anywhere else but HERE. This edit took hard work, man! This is an important need no matter what."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 895869535 by Electricburst1996 (talk) Doesn’t matter, This is the main article of Cartoon Network, so no need to retear down the edit, and look, it’s sourced."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User keeps re-inserting information related to the recent international Cartoon Network website hackings. I have maintained the stance that this information is not relevant, as the article is about the United States Cartoon Network feed, which was not affected by the hackings. Talk page discussion has not been extensive enough to form a consensus. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * . You need four edits to violate 3RR and more than one editor to edit war. And why have you not participated in the discussion about this? El_C 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Gameguides reported by User:Rusentaja (Result: 3-month semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit war is about an autobiography tag.

This article is mostly written by accounts that have nothing but Joel Breton edits in them:



The accounts are also defending the article from deletion nominations and removing tags about notability or other page issues. Gameguides is the latest of such accounts.

--Rusentaja (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you tried changing to the COI tag instead? The wording of that tag is broader, and would be less objectionable.  It would not imply that the subject themselves wrote the article, which they may or may not have.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be a good idea. El_C 23:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

. Mostly stale, but semiprotected for 3 months just to be on the safe side. El_C 23:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Rebecca jones reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (Original addition by editor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor added same text four times in one day, the fourth after reversion by three editors and a EW warning. She responded to the EW warning with a snark. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Yes, the user is edit-warring, but they're also using explanatory edit summaries and engaging on the talkpage. I make it three reverts that they've made — the original addition of the material isn't a revert, obviously. I don't have any appetite for blocking them, at least not yet. Please continue attempting to reach a resolution on talk. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't asking for a revert. Just wanted an unlogged warning from someone she might listen to as this is becoming disruptive. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll write a comment to them. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC).
 * About 45 minutes after you left them the warning, they once again tried to re-add the same text. I blocked them for 1 week, and left an explanatory note on their talk page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is one week the usual first step in the blocking process? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any mandated time period for any particular step. If you are aware of such guidance which tells admins how long to block, please direct me to it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just before the block, I was about to ask for 24 hours. But, I see signs of NOTHERE in this editor's behavior, and one week may act as a better prophylactic. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 week is excessive for a first violation, most admins from what I have seen do not block for such a time frame on a first block. Generally, I have seen laddering, go from 24 to 48 to a week, etc. Sir Joseph (talk)
 * Since two people have asked, allow me to explain further. Blocks are not punishment for violations.  Blocks are to stop an account which is clearly behaving in a disruptive way.  As far as I am aware, the term of all blocks should be "until the blocked user indicates they understand the reason for their block and assures us they intend to not continue the same behavior", because blocks are supposed to prevent problematic behavior.  24 hours is often too short, because sometimes a user may not log in for a day or two.  1 week is a time period long enough to assure the user is aware they have been blocked, and has the opportunity to respond to the block rationale.  Blocking and allowing the user to just be unblocked with no response at all is not a preventative measure: it has done nothing to indicate the user intends to stop the problematic behavior.  Short  1-day long blocks are basically only useful for IP-based vandalism, where the IP address is not likely to be reused again after a day or so.  For username based blocks, the best course of action is to require the user to explain how they will stop their own problematic behavior.  I might add that this block could be for as short as 1 hour or less.  The very minute that they request an unblock and indicate they intend to stop the edit war, they will be unblocked.  So, my block could be shorter than 24 hours.  It will be exactly as long as is necessary to stop the disruption.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayron, good block. It's looking like I didn't do Rebecca any kind favour by assuming good faith — they were going for being blocked. What a world. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC).
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you know by now, No good deed.... O3000 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well Edit_warring: "where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense" — that's about as much guidance as we are given. One week is a a reasonable block length — as would 24 hours be, which I would have gone with here. Which is to say, I mostly go with 24 hours for 3RR-threshold or near-threshold first offences, and I can't overstate how effective these are. When you reach that level of edit warring, the users are usually highly-invested and are unlikely to take a day-long break voluntarily. But again, one week works just as well. El_C 19:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's fine. Thanks for that.  We all have our own way of handling this stuff.  I'm glad you've had success with 1-day blocks.  I have not had that experience, which is why I usually start with longer blocks for even first offenses, for registered users.  As I said above, all blocks last exactly as long as it takes for a person to explain that they understand the reason for the block and assure us they intend to stop.  Blocks are only to stop behavior: if the person will stop the behavior, there is no need for a block.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Srbernadette reported by User:Tataral (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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor is edit-warring against multiple editors and a clear consensus on the talk page, and has been asked repeatedly to seek consensus on the talk page. They were warned here and here by two different editors, but have continued edit-warring. --Tataral (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 01:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

User:IrishHugo reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IrishHugo, a new WP:SPA, has repeatedly sought to return "centre-left" to the description of this party's ideology. When asked for a citation, he did provide one, but when I examined it, it says, if anything, the opposite to what is claimed for it, as discussed at Talk. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Although this is a 3RR violation I am declining to block at this time because the editor was not warned before being reported here. I will do that now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Flashuz reported by User:Lamensi (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I will make no further edits to the page today, but the user has been completely unwilling to discuss the issue at hand, despite repeated attempts to do so. In notifications on their Talk page, on the update page for the article, and encouraged to participate in discussion on the article's Talk Page.Lamensi (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">NJA  &#124; talk  14:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Drew270 reported by User:Rcarter555 (Result: page protected)
Page: The Waltons

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Waltons&oldid=894034524
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Waltons&oldid=896260307

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

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

Comments:

user Drew270 continues to disrupt the page by adding an actor twice onto a list of characters. I have taken it to the talk page in an attempt to resolve it, but with no luck as the user continues to revert. I have notified them of this report. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Article protected for 2 days to give you time to work this out. The alternative was blocking both of you. make no more reverts until you have resolved this on the talk page. Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have alreadedy reported Rcater for his belittling tactics and constant changing of the waltons page,hes very much like a bully,they like it their way ,sorry but which talk page,ive already reported carter to an admin Drew270

User:Uvwxyz1 reported by User:Toglenn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Rose_Summers [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Request for Administrator to resolve dispute

. You only list one revert — that's not edit warring. Filing this report seems like an overreaction. El_C 06:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:174.102.161.185 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_Katzer&diff=896339052&oldid=896337940
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_Katzer&diff=next&oldid=896339554
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_Katzer&diff=next&oldid=896341237
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_Katzer&diff=next&oldid=896341589

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is an infobox warrior trying to edit war in his preferred choice. The status quo is that there has not been an IB on the page from creation in 2007 until yesterday. There was a little back and forth earlier today, but the individual has pushed the point this evening, edit warring against three editors, and after they were alerted to the ArbCom sanctions in the area of infoboxes. A talk page thread was opened yesterday (at 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)) and there has been civil discussion there so far. Earlier today I added a hidden note pointing to the discussion and asking for comment there rather than further edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 22:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * was just reviewing this, you were quick again ;) I believe this user was acting in good faith. Everything they tried to do was reverted. They didn't use edit summaries but perhaps they don't know about edit summaries. It is not clear to me that those diffs above are all reverts. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They were warned, but they blanked their talk page as a response — which mean that they read the warnings. Indeed, not all of the edits are clearly reverts, but I didn't block for 3RR, I blocked for Edit warring. No, if you are constantly being reverted, there is something wrong, and you need to heed the warnings and attempt to resolve the outstanding issue through discussion. Which is totally lacking in this case. El_C 22:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I welcomed the user, remembering my beginning when I didn't know what an article talk page is, and adding the same thing several times because I thought I had made a mistake when hitting "save". We can choose to suspect a warrior or asssume in good faith that an IP is new. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, perhaps I've become too jaded. But I dunno, after 40+ edits I expect a bit more competence. El_C 06:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I unblock per AGF / ROPE? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? They edit warred; they were asked not to; they were warned; they were given the ArbCom sanction template to show IBs are an area in which to be careful. Yet they STILL edit warred - and not once did they bother using the talk page, despite being asked to and despite the hidden text. I've seen IPs shown much, much less compassion when removing an unnecessary box, so why when edit warring against three editors to insert one, are we now bending over backwards to facilitate, enable and support edit warring infobox warriors? - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to unblock, myself, if the user makes an unblock request. Look, with all due respect, Wikipedia is not advanced mathematics — all it takes is reading and responding with a couple of lines of text. I see new users do so every day. But if you so wish, by all means, unblock-away. I don't feel strongly about this, either way, and the likelihood I was in error is by no means outside of the realm of possibilities. El_C 15:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So edit warring is all OK if it's forcing in an IB? FFS.... talk about enabling second rate behaviour. I've seen too many IPs doing too much stupid shit but now they're being helped on their way in an area that is under ArbCom sanctions? - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Masdggg (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user prevents Chinese user from modifying POV statements. Acupuncture is only regarded as pseudoscience in some countries and regions. You can see zh~Wikipedia article “针灸”. 風雲北洋 WP ※English is very difficult 18:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You, as well, are involved in that edit war. If i were you, I'd stop, back away, use the article talk page, and stop your own edit warring.  This will end badly for you.  I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but it takes at least two people to edit war, and you're equally at fault on that front.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether acupuncture is pseudoscientific has always been controversial. -- 風雲北洋 WP ※English is very difficult 18:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, this has absolutely zero to do with you being a Chinese user. Second, no one has crossed the 3RR threshold and you have as many reverts as the editor you are reporting. Finally, as I have suggested on the article talk page, you need to read through the archives as your concerns have been addressed ad nauseum there and the consensus is clearly against your desired changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope the editorial dispute between us can be resolved. -- 風雲北洋 WP ※English is very difficult 18:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 针灸是不是伪科学，这一直都是有争议的. 如果直接定义为“伪科学”，这未免太过.
 * No 3RR violation by Roxy, and while I do take take a close look at all involved when someone gets up to the 3RR line, it's pretty clear that Masdggg is the problem here between edit warring, WP:ONUS violations, and WP:OWN issues with respect to the Chinese user privilege they seem to be invoking. In the process of a few hours, Masdgg has tried to insert the same material four times.. The acupuncture topic is also under DS for exactly the kind of attitude we're seeing here, so this seems to be a pretty clear boomerang case if any action is taken. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

. Both users reverted three times — page protected for four days. Please figure this out on the talk page. And please don't file reports without including diffs next time. Thanks. El_C 22:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pardoned meaning no longer convicted of any crime"
 * 2)  "Acquitted at trial so never convicted"
 * 3)  "Clearly states Small was aquitted which means he wasn't convicted, Powers was pardoned (We don't include pardoned politicians in the list) and Matricardi is not an elected politician nor is he an appointed politician so should not be included."
 * 4)  "Adding Berryhill since he was fined"
 * 5)  "Sources state Powers was pardoned. We don't include people with pardons in the article"
 * 6)  "Source clearly states he was aquitted as does his wikipedia article"
 * 7)  "Source clearly states he was fined but was never convicted nor sent to jail."
 * 8)  "Source clearly states he is not an elected politician"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 896203964 by John from Idegon (talk)"
 * 10)  "Information is inaccurate. Caleb Powers, Len Small and Tom Berryhill were never convicted, Edmund Matricardi III is not an elected politician, local judges such Juvenile Court Judge Darrell Catron and those with DUI's have never been included, Frank Ballance was a federal politician etc"
 * 11)  "Alot of incorrect infomation which shouldn't be included"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896203964 by John from Idegon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Information is inaccurate. Caleb Powers, Len Small and Tom Berryhill were never convicted, Edmund Matricardi III is not an elected politician, local judges such Juvenile Court Judge Darrell Catron and those with DUI's have never been included, Frank Ballance was a federal politician etc"
 * 3)  "Alot of incorrect infomation which shouldn't be included"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2019 */ add"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"
 * 3)   "/* Inaccurate information */ ce"
 * 4)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"
 * 5)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"
 * 6)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"
 * 7)   "/* Inaccurate information */ re"


 * Comments:

. El_C 23:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Wumbolo reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (removed, continued to edit war after the warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Wumbolo was just recently blocked for the exact same thing. Here he reverted six times, even AFTER being warned. Time for a topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm trying to make sense of that article's history and I have to say I'm astonished that Wumbolo self-reverted at one point with "Oops I think I've broken 3RR" (despite, by my count being way past 3RR anyway at that point) and then carried on reverting no more than 12 hours later ... I'm not going to block myself here and will leave it to another admin, as it's 01:00 here and I don't like to block people and then stop editing for a number of hours, but I think this is fairly straightforward. Black Kite (talk)

. Indeed, it is especially ironic. I, too, don't appreciate the lawyering of 3RR and as far as I'm concerned, it has been violated. El_C 00:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Praveen.dravid reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896318473 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 896318200 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896318200 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Royal Challengers Bangalore. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Royal Challengers Bangalore. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I would be careful about bringing this to our attention, as you are within 2 hours of breaking 3RR yourself, and such behaviour could easily be seen to be gaming the rule. I don't see any reason to block one side and not the other in this dispute. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I've explained him about WP:COMMONNAME in the edit summary as well as when I warned him. But it seems he doesn't wish to discuss. The city is still named Bangalore as you can see. There is no reason to break consistency in this article only. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment:,  I've opened up a discussion at Talk:Royal Challengers Bangalore and invited the other party. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Comment: Sir, how long should I wait before inviting others? Is there a time frame for it? What if he continues with his other edits but ignores this invite? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with MSGJ above. I see no where that the OP has used the talk page to try to resolve the dispute, or has attempted to start a conversation with their opponent.  They are using the "undo" function as a weapon just as much as their opponent is.  I have half a mind to block both of you unless you both stop editing the article and use the talk page to resolve your differences instead.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So what do you people suggest? What he is trying to do is wrong. I should have used the article talkpage or his talkpage to discuss instead of mentioninf WP:COMMONNAME in the edit summaries and in the warnings. For that I apologize. Should I initiate a discussion now in his talkpage or the article talpage? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's better. Now, give the discussion some time.  See where it goes.  If you can't reach an agreement, invite some additional comments  WP:30 and WP:DRN are good places to find such extra opinions.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Give it a day or two. Not everyone comes by Wikipedia every day.  If the other editor has been editing Wikipedia since you notified them, then they have seen the notice.  If they have not been editing, then don't assume they have seen it.  If you can see they have been editing for a day or so, and have not participated in the discussion OR if there doesn't appear to be any productive compromise reached, try on of the dispute resolution methods I mentioned above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment
 * Agree with others above., remember my concern raised with you not long ago on your talk page about reverting on articles. Be careful and perhaps refresh yourself with the tips to deescalate issues at WP:DR. <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">NJA  &#124; talk  12:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Two questions, 1) Can I edit other stuff and revert obvious disruptions/vandalisms on the article besides the "name part" (Bangalore<->Bengaluru) or that would be seen as edit war too?
 * 2) After a few days, if Mr. Praveen doesn't show up, can I request editors at WP:IN and those involved with WP:COMMONAME stuff in India related articles to discuss since the issue is based on it? I'll notify here as well and ping you all.


 * Thanks for reminding me sir. This is the first time I'm reporting someone at AN3. I thought I can only report if someone makes a 4th revert. The only thing I did was not to "explicitly" discuss with Mr. Praveen in the article talkpage about the WP:COMMONNAME policy on Bangalore article and why I believed his edits were Disruptive POV pushing. However I did mention it multiple times in the "Edit summaries" and when I warned him in his talkpage. See this.
 * I accept that my approach was flawed but all I tried to do was to restore the article back as per WP:COMMONNAME. See discussion on Bangalore's COMMONNAME here. I don't believe Wikipedia would let anyone replace the words "Germany" / "German" with "Deutschland" / "Deutsche" in the FC Bayern Munich article for example. Saying that, wouldn't it be correct if somebody restores the article to an older version (before this edit war) till we come to a concensus in the talkpage? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">NJA  &#124; talk  02:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Mir Adil Ali reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Checkuser blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been extensively warned by various other editors, and advised to discuss the issue on the talk page, but is still inserting unsourced assertions about the subject's religion into the article. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 11:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Dalej78 reported by User:Bradv (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No need for subjective, harassing, demeaning and belittling, exclusive and punishing words.  Show some compassion and humanity Brad."
 * 2)  "Because Wikipedia keeps allowing biased language, I inserted my own.  Erroneous is a SUBJECTIVE and Opinion term."
 * 3)  "removed blatant subjectivity and stop changing it back, I will change this to read more objectively until infinity"
 * 4)  "Removed blatant subjectivity"
 * 5)  "removed subjectivity"
 * 6)  "no cited sources or data"
 * 1)  "no cited sources or data"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Note this is continuing even after the above report. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)