Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive390

User:98.230.75.223 reported by User:Jamez42 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

IP violated WP:3RR after restoring their preferred version five times, which has been previously reverted by four different users. Such changes are not referenced and have not been discussed in the talk page. Similar changes were made in the articles of other diplomatic bodies in Washington DC, such as the embassies of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and the Apostolic Nunciature, in which the IP restored again their version after reverts in the former two. Quoting one of the first edit summaries: "Edited to represent that there are many claimed ambassadors, just like in Venezuela. be consistent and follow the laws Wikipedia"; my drawing parallels with other unrelated articles, this also seems like disruption to demonstrate a point. Jamez42 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:160.39.234.40 (Result: protected)
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:

According to Reliable_sources:

Annalisa Merelli's article, which contains the statement that has been disputed by multiple editors (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), falls under the category of "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". Furthermore, Merelli is not a specialist or recognized expert on the subject under discussion. Therefore it seems to me that, according to the rules, the disputed statement should be attributed to the author in the text of the article and not represented as fact. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

. You both reverted three times, so 3RR was not violated. Please continue to try to reach consensus on the article talk page. Sorry, I did not get a chance to read all the background provided here, so I can't comment beyond this — but I did feel like quick action was needed here. El_C 04:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This exact thing has been discussed many times by IPs and SPAs, for years, with the exact same arguments. There is no real reason anyone would read all of this sealioing nonsense without a good reason. In addition to the current batch on the talk page, a good percentage of the four archive pages is also about this. This RFC from July 2018 was mainly about this issue. This has also spilled over into ANI and NPOVN and probably some other places I'm forgetting. Not once have any of these IPs or SPAs introduced a single source which even hints at the idea that the disputed line is incorrect, or that it's even seen as controversial by other academics. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merelli is not an academic, specialist, or recognized expert on the subject. How do you propose to demonstrate that Evola didn't make a particular statement? Citing all of his known writings? From Verifiability:
 * Furthermore, your insinuation that only "IPs and SPAs" have disputed the statement is a lie, albeit irrelevant. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your insinuation that only "IPs and SPAs" have disputed the statement is a lie, albeit irrelevant. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C, please read the talk page section I linked to. This has already been discussed there. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This has already been covered by the RFC — and this is not the venue to discuss this further — the place to do so is on the article talk page. But as also mentioned, I am finding your arguments to be increasingly tendentious. Again, please don't use "lie" here and elsewhere as that is an assumption of bad faith — use "false," instead. El_C 17:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Alex-h (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:57, 12 May 2019
 * 2) 12:40, 13 May 2019
 * 3) 15:21, 13 May 2019
 * 4) 15:22, 13 May 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I think this is unnecessary, since my edits and discussions in the talk page clearly shows how we as a group are moving towards consensus. As a matter of fact as I had stated in the talk page, I was convinced by the editors on the other camp that they are right in saying the content should not be placed in the sexual abuse section; rather in the human rights violation section. Moreover, I attributed and neutralized the sentences to meet them in middle ground. The response from the other camp of course was always a blanket reverse of course. I also did my due diligence in terms of reliability of the source by inquiring from the WP:RSN. Sadly, the other camp weighed in and denied an independent voice from commenting.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

. Actually, there's only three reverts here, so 3RR was not violated. I, however, have warned the user recetly about edit warring, so that's what the block is for. El_C 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:179.180.114.29 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 896989707 by Grayfell (talk) Stop edit-warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 896988730 by Grayfell (talk) Maybe consensus should be gained for adding the category instead, since this was the first time it was added."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 896980817 by Grayfell (talk) The category is for Totalitarian states, not all Military dictatorships are totalitarian, Totalitarian is not the same as Authoritarian."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 893255212 by TheAlderaanian (talk) Not every military dictatorship is totalitarian."


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


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


 * Comments:

This is more complicated than I initially thought. IPs in this range/geolocation have a history of strange edits surrounding categorization of fascism and overlapping topics. Some are fine, but many are confusing or alarming. This is one of at least a few examples of the editor trying to delete a category by removing all entries and blanking the page. ,, and are almost certainly the same editor, and have all been reverted for this behavior. The editor has also edit-warred a lot at Fascism in Europe, which User:El C fully-protected a few days ago.

At Talk:Fascism in Europe (Here) the user says "I was blocked, yes, but then again, so was you." I cannot figure out which IP was blocked. This looks like it's been a pattern for at least a few months. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, I removed the category because it is not appropriate to add it there, military dictatorships aren't automatically totalitarian, the category is for totalitarian states, but most military dictatorships aren't even totalitarian, so what is the reason for adding it? I don't know why you are picking up completely unrelated cases to use as an argument, I suppose you realize that your case for this one is weak, and I have no reason to lie that I was blocked in the past, honestly it seems to me that you're just biased against IP users, I would argue that there is a better case for edit warring against you when it comes to this one. -- 179.180.114.29 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can argue all you want, but you were edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, it's getting a bit much to keep up with all of your IPs. Can you not just register an account, so everything is limited to one username? Yes, I agree with you on the content, but you did violate 3RR, which I know you to be aware of. El_C 03:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm feeling you. I dropped a rangeblock on this one: this has been going on for a while, and I'm sure I could find another range or two to block. I don't want to--if this user would play by the rules (and getting an account is not a prerequisite, but it makes a lot of things easier) they'd probably be a very positive contributor. Le sigh. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Le sigh, indeed. Keeping up with these various IPs in the Fascism et al. articles has been... difficult, to say the least. I've added a comment to Category talk:Military dictatorships, which is what should have been done prior to this edit war flaring up. El_C 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:37.35.144.72 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 48 Hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897105718 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897105025 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
 * 3)  "All routes bookable on Ryanair's website. Fully sourced and verifiable information."
 * 4)  "Ajf773 is vandalizing future destinations maliciously; all routes are bookable via the Ryanair website"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Málaga Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has also violated 3RR on about two other pages, including AIV and Doncaster Sheffield Airport. IanDBeacon (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 48 hours prior to seeing this report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex.osheter reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897118987 by Jorm (talk) They did not remove it, check the diff. Also, and why did you undo my change with it without concensus?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897102719 by Jorm (talk) Why demand discussion in the talk page if you're not going to discuss? "This is perfectly fine and acceptable" is your subjective opinion, and does not change the fact it is OR, which is not welcome on Wikipedia."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897098832 by Tsumikiria (talk) See talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 897056775 by Jorm (talk) Talk page is cluttered enough, this does not warrant a talk. It's OR and should be corrected to the real quotes."
 * 5)  "Combining quotes is WP:OR. I edited the quotes to show them as separate."
 * 6)  "Added "for""
 * 1)  "Added "for""


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Cleaning up some OR */ cmt"


 * Comments:

5RR against consensus for the same content that was largely opposed on talk page. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus in the talk page. I made a minor edit, to clear some OR and it was reverted. The reason given was this required a discussion in the talk page. At first I disagreed, but after seeing two people revert my proposal, I decided to add it to the talk page. My revert at was unjustified, and I shouldn't have done that. I should have waited for the other editors to pitch in. Seeing that in the three hours that the discussion was up, the person who urged me to discuss it ghosted. I messaged the other user, also no response. I decided to revert again, and that was immediately reverted by the same user. Not to assume bad faith, but from the looks of it, it seems they do not want to discuss it further. The final revert is unrelated, as it reverted Jorm's revert because he did not read the diff from an edit by another user. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting on behalf of another user was still a revert, which added to that 3RR violation. There was a unanimous consensus for that particular clause you're objecting. It wasn't OR by any degree. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what I was contesting, and it's not what I changed. Please see . Alex.osheter (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

. I count four reverts. It doesn't matter that one of the reverts isn't the same as the others, that's still a violation of 3RR. El_C 00:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: On April 17th, Contaldo added the details of the Lavender Hill Mob's founder's death to it's article, to wit: "Robinson dies of AIDS in 1992." Just a few hours later, I reverted him, saying in an edit summary that this detail was not relevant. With no explaination, Contaldo reverted. I removed it again, with the same explanation. I also started a discussion on talk where I further explained my rationale, and reminded Contaldo of WP:BRD. (NB: We have had the BRD discussion many, many times, including recently on his talk page.)

A conversation took place there, with each of us reverting the other along the way (mea culpa). Throughout all of the discussion, however, Contaldo exhibited WP:IDHT. Even after I pointed out that there was WP:NO CONSENSUS to include the material, he still refused to listen by reverting once again, saying in a summary that I should "Demonstrate there is no consensus..." I would have thought that the multiple reversions and the discussion on the talk page made it clear there was no consensus, but he continued to add the material again and again, sometimes without going to talk.

There are several examples of Contaldo's efforts to push through his own preferred version on this article, but this is representative of them all. It is clear that an edit war is taking place. I am partially responsible, and take responsibility for it as I thought he might listen to reason. However, I can now see that Contaldo will not stop without outside intervention. He has been warned and even blocked for this behavior in the past:

--Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

. El_C 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Firstly I have to say that I haven't been blocked for editing warring in the past (it should also be noted that the references to BrianCUA above suggest other editors but was actually a previous name used by Slugger). Second I have to point out that I complained a few days ago about Slugger O'Toole for WP:HOUNDING - they are clearly upset about that and trying to find a grievance against me. Actually proving my earlier point about feeling harassed and intimidated. On the issue of Robinson dying from AIDS - I think this point is relevant to the article. I have engaged with Slugger to explain why and they have not been able to point to any guidance that would not permit the point to be made. They also refer to being "consensus". Slugger does this a lot. By "consensus" Slugger means Slugger. They take this approach across a range of articles. They don't like something, they take it out. They refer vaguely to consensus despite the fact that no-one else has intervened or raised any objections. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I got into a bizarre situation with the article on Cardinal Arinze where I add some text; Slugger liked it; I had second thoughts and tried to remove my own edits; Slugger warned me I could not do that because Slugger liked it and claimed that "consensus" was now in place - despite the fact no other editor had expressed an opinion. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Additional information:

On April 17th, Contaldo added the details of the Lavender Hill Mob's founder's death to it's article, to wit: "Robinson dies of AIDS in 1992." Just a few hours later, I reverted him, saying in an edit summary that this detail was not relevant. With no explaination, Contaldo reverted. I removed it again, with the same explanation. I also started a discussion on talk where I further explained my rationale, and reminded Contaldo of WP:BRD. (NB: We have had the BRD discussion many, many times, including recently on his talk page.)

A conversation took place there, with each of us reverting the other along the way (mea culpa). Throughout all of the discussion, however, Contaldo exhibited WP:IDHT. Even after I pointed out that there was WP:NO CONSENSUS to include the material, he still refused to listen by reverting once again, saying in a summary that I should "Demonstrate there is no consensus..." I would have thought that the multiple reversions and the discussion on the talk page made it clear there was no consensus, but he continued to add the material again and again, sometimes without going to talk.

There are several examples of Contaldo's efforts to push through his own preferred version on this article, but this is representative of them all. It is clear that an edit war is taking place. I am partially responsible, and take responsibility for it as I thought he might listen to reason. However, I can now see that Contaldo will not stop without outside intervention. He has been warned and even blocked for this behavior in the past:

--Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

. Stale. The only person reverting the user is you. You both should stop this slow edit war and figure this out on the talk page, or failing that, pursue other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That El_C - certainly very happy to do that. I'd also like to point out that 4 editors have intervened to say that the material should be included. I am not an outlier. Slugger is still resisting this actual consensus. This doesn't sound very collaborative to me. Worth looking into I suspect.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Stophidingbehind reported by User:General Ization (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Hey Jeb, this edit does not violate NPOV, if factual, and the removal of the edit is an act of vandalism. Undid revision 897219977 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897216912 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897216204 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 897211864 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 897211627 by RickinBaltimore (talk)"
 * 6)  "The edits to this page are neutral and do not assume guilt or culpability; the updates to this biography are factual and relevant. Further, the repeated deletion of the updates are an act of vandalism, explicitly meant to mask a biographical addition. Undid revision 897210885 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 7)  "The edits to this page are neutral and do not assume guilt or culpability; the updates to this biography are factual and relevant. Further, the repeated deletion of the updates are an act of vandalism, explicitly meant to mask a biographical addition. Undid revision 897209870 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 897205310 by Oskarpoellerman (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undoing vandalism -- this page has been updated to accurately reflect a biography of a living person. Undid revision 897203415 by Oskarpoellerman (talk)"
 * 10)  "There is significant documentation (both personal accounts and official University statements) supporting these edits, which are relevant to this biography."
 * 1)  "There is significant documentation (both personal accounts and official University statements) supporting these edits, which are relevant to this biography."


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


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


 * Comments:

Persistent violations of BLP policy and edit warring at this article despite warnings.  General Ization Talk  15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging other involved editors:  General Ization  Talk  15:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * +1, who has now also received a warning concerning EW and 3RR violation.  General Ization  Talk  15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

The deletion rationale by Historyofpoetry does not hold up under any amount of scrutiny and the decision to lock the page is one done in service of personal interest of the subject. While Watten may be retaining counsel to rebuff these allegations, the edits to his page do not violate NPOV or make any presumption of guilt. Instead, they simply and objectively state facts: Barrett Watten is under investigation for engaging in a sexual relationship with a graduate advisee; dozens of former students and colleagues came forward in 2019 to share their own allegations.

There is no attack on the subject, and there is no possibility of libel; it is clearly not libelous to say "someone has been accused of a crime." Please reconsider your decision to lock this page, as it is being done in the personal interest of Watten, not in the interests of Wikipedia's objectivity. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response does not address your edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this report has nothing to do with the allegedly factual nature of your edits. Do you understand what the policy on edit warring is, and what it does and does not permit you to do? A notice was placed on your Talk page directing you to read the policy; did you not do so, and then continue to edit war over the content? That is what we are discussing here.  General Ization Talk  16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Evergreen. I was attempting to address the chicken-and-egg character of this situation, wherein multiple accounts added factual information, and then other accounts continuously took it down. I apologize for edit warring, and was only too late aware that it was a violation (I did not instinctively check my "talk page" to see the warnings).

I have stopped editing the page, but am requesting that the factual additions be returned to the page, as it was Historyofpoetry who began in the edit war, taking down objective material for personal gain. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know you have stopped editing the page. Please respond to my questions above. We will not take up the question of whether or not the content was appropriate here, because it makes no difference.  General Ization Talk </i> 16:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not need to "instinctively" check your Talk page; presumably you, like every other registered editor, received a rather intrusive notification that you had new messages there. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To answer your questions: I do understand the edit warring policy; I did not see the warning on my talk page immediately; after the policy was explained to me I stopped editing the page. I am seeking clarification on which version is retained in resolving this edit war, as Historyofpoetry was also warned for edit warring. The appropriateness or accuracy of the content seems relevant in deciding what version of the page to revert to. I remain concerned that this report is working in service of the personal gain of the subject. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To further clarify: because I am not a long-time user, the notifications were not intrusive to me, just more noise at the top of the page. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Until and unless there is consensus established to add it, the content, having already been challenged by multiple editors, will not be added. So, having indicated that you now understand the edit warring policy, do you agree that you were edit warring? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

General Ization, Thank you for that straightforward explanation. I agree that I was unknowingly edit warring and stopped once I understood the prohibition and the policy. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is Historyofpoetry writing. Is my participation here relevant? I'm unclear whether a comment from me would be pertinent or, if pertinent, whether it should be placed here. I'll make the comment, as briefly as I can, & you can judge for yourself.


 * 1) I have a long-standing engagement with Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, & Wikis in general (I knew Ward Cunningham). None of that matters in thinking about my position on the current issue other than to support my familiarity with the context. I understand the NPOV guideline & the reason it exists.
 * 2) Stophidingbehind is not writing from a NPOV. It would shock me if he/she were sufficiently disingenuous even to claim to be doing so. No, Stophidingbehind has a purpose: to attack the subject of the article (Watten).
 * 3) The subject (Watten) is being attacked in a serial, "piling on" manner, at another website created for the purpose. I'd be happy to supply the URL if relevant. The site is anonymous, allows no engagement from Watten or anyone else who might offer something other than a complaint. In short, it's a witch hunt.
 * 4) The new user Stophidingbehind seems to be one of those engaged in this systematic attack. He/she seems to have registered at Wikipedia.org with the precise purpose of extending this attack to Wikipedia.
 * 5) Stophidingbehind should state, with specicity, his/her relationship to the site & to the complaints against Watten.
 * 6) Whatever (Watten) has been accused of is being adjudicated institutionally. Perhaps he will be found to have done something warranting an institutional condemnation. Perhaps he'll be cleared. I know nothing relevant on that subject.
 * 7) What possible relevance does any of this have to Wikipedia? The article on Watten exists, presumably, because of Watten's significance as a poet & critic -- because of the significance of his work, I mean. No one disputes its significance.

Uh oh, that wasn't particularly brief! I hope at least that it was useful. Historyofpoetry (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't brief or neutral. There is, in fact, a hearty dispute whether or not Watten is a significant figure, though that dispute is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the fact that over 300 people have put their name forward to corroborate this "witch hunt." In short, it's not a witch hunt, and Historyofpoetry knows as much. It is a series of well-documented and well-corroborated accusations. Now that it has been explained to me the type of source necessary, neither myself nor others will attempt to edit the page until that type of source is available. However, Historyofpoetry is being purposefully disingenuous, and that is a shame on a site such as this. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

[redacted a comment from Stophidingbehind, do not restore.] --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is for reviewing accusations of edit warring. Only.  It is not a place to relitigate the edit war. Reviewing this:
 * The removal of the information is in defense of WP:BLP, and is immune from WP:EW.
 * Stophindingbehind edit warred. A lot.  In violation of WP:EW and WP:BLP.  Normally this would warrant a block.  However, all the early warnings were about vandalism and disruption, not clear explanations of WP:EW and WP:BLP.  Once those warnings were given, it doesn't appear they reverted again.  Or if they did, they did so once, and have agreed to stop.
 * The article has been edit confirmed protected, since SHB was not the only account adding this info without suitable reference.
 * Discussion can now move to the talk page.
 * Don't accuse other editors of being particular real-life people without solid evidence. Doing so again will get you blocked.
 * Closing to limit further off-topic discussion here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Pak research reported by User:Samee (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897214257 by Samee (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897213970 by Samee (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897084218 by Samee (talk). Mr Samee may kindly not like to rely on un verified information. Personal information is sensitive data and may not be tinkered based on un verified facts which is against Wikipedia policy. thank you."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897084218 by Samee (talk). Mr Samee may kindly not like to rely on un verified information. Personal information is sensitive data and may not be tinkered based on un verified facts which is against Wikipedia policy. thank you."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Anusha Rahman."
 * 2)   "Caution: Censorship of material on Anusha Rahman."
 * 3)   "Reverted edits by Pak research (talk) to last version by Samee"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Anusha Rahman."


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


 * Comments:

The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia and bypassing discussion in the favour of reversions. samee converse  15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They initiated a discussion here on my talk. samee  converse  16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

. There's only two reverts listed. Please figure this out on the BLP noticeboard. El_C 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:82.207.187.7 reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

Don’t have enough room to list all reverts - this IP has reverted two users seven times in total, introducing defamatory content each time. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Antoine76000 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Billie Lourd"
 * 2)   "/* Billie Lourd */"


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


 * Comments:

This editor has restored a contested edit six times this month (including 4 reverts in the last 24 hours), and about a dozen times in recent months using various IPs, without any explanatory edit summary or addressing my revert edit summaries on the talk page. The contested edit is only the linking of a character name twice in the same small table, so I have been hesitant to escalate the situation to ARV, but this editor's refusal to discuss or engage in any way is inappropriately non-collaborative, and perhaps a short block will get this point across. I don't think temporarily protecting the article itself will have an effect on the editing behavior. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 14:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, on May 11 Antoine76000 linked several instances of "Herself" within the Sophie Turner article, which is blatant overlinking, and was subsequently reverted. This editor has just now restored those links, of course with no edit summary. As a matter of fact, this username was created in February, has only a little over 100 edits, and does not seem to have EVER used an edit summary or commented on a talk page, despite being reverted at every turn.— TAnthonyTalk 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I see both Antoine76000 and TAnthony repeatedly reverting each other in the history. If you come here reporting edit warring, I take a dim view if the filer has been edit warring too. I don't think a block is required, simply that the first one to stop reverting the other will stop the war, and hopefully lead to a discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You see, that is the problem: Antoine76000 has never used an edit summary or made a talk page comment, and what do you think would compel him to do so? This editor has reverted this edit about 20 times in recent months, my bad that I thought it was 4 times in 24 hours, but though it may not be a direct violation of 3RR, it is certainly a negative pattern that is completely disrespectful of our process. Warnings from another editor aren't cutting it here.— TAnthonyTalk 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Antoine76000's edits were, say, adding biased POV pushing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would be more sympathetic to your cause, but you are arguing about a link. Is it really that important, and can you not just drop it, ignore it, and work elsewhere? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've made it clear that the real problem isn't the link in this particular article, it's the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of any kind over contested edits in this or any other article. I have more of an issue, for example, with the linking of Sophie Turner within the Sophie Turner article. This is clearly not something we do, but your advice is really to ignore it and hope that this editor will engage? I get that this isn't exactly an edit warring problem, or disastrous to Wikipedia, but it seems like you are saying the solution to any impasse is for the party that actually follows the rules to just shut up. That's brilliant.— TAnthonyTalk 17:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your communication style didn't help - dropping three times in succession on their talk page was rather daft, don't you think? I see Antoine76000 has now been blocked; they seem to belong to a particular class of editor that never seems to realise they have messages, or know how to reply to them. I've blocked quite a few of these, and invariably they just disappear; here's one example, here's another and here's an infamous example. So I wanted to wait and make absolutely sure that blocking was the only option left. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:King Crimson the Third reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision. Please read this and this. This will be the last revert for a while."
 * 2)  "reverting two edits. also adding one more."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897185600 by Trivialist (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Subject has already been warned (and blocked) before for 3RR, still they violated 3RR, again. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

. While not a 3RR violation (you need four reverts to violate it, not three), I still feel like sanctions are due here. Especially, since the user was blocked for edit warring just two weeks ago. El_C 00:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:173.164.142.157 reported by User:ResultingConstant (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897548549 by Rtbittaker (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897545791 by ResultingConstant (talk)"
 * 3)  "Removed entries from openly religious christian publishers and sources. Also removed claims that are not pertinent to the discussion of whether or not Jesus was a historical figure."
 * 4)  "/* Historical existence */"
 * 1)  "/* Historical existence */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

repeated mass removals of consensus content without discussion ResultingConstant (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

. Latest warning seems to have worked. Let us know if it doesn't. El_C 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:212.120.225.215 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897718002 by Kitchen Knife (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897714135 by Ralbegen (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897702766 by Kitchen Knife (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 897702344 by Ralbegen (talk)"
 * 5)  "source https://farleftwatch.com/hope-not-hate/ http://petersweden.com/exposing-fake-news"
 * 1)  "source https://farleftwatch.com/hope-not-hate/ http://petersweden.com/exposing-fake-news"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated non-constructive edits. Five reverts in under three hours. Ralbegen (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 22:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonmoy0013 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: ec protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897762486 by Tonmoy0013 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897758154 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. (Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (Twinkle)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "// Edit via Wikiplus/Note"


 * Comments:

No intent to discuss is evident. Promo-spamming. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

. Page ec protected for one week. El_C 07:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist reported by User:51.7.229.160 (Result: IP sock blocked, and Materialscientist justified against spurious accusations)
The user undid my edits with no explanation, four times in 45 minutes, and has now protected the article, thus misusing their administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. They have done exactly the same at Old Bexley and Sidcup (UK Parliament constituency). 51.7.229.160 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not). Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoah, have you really just reverted four times in a content dispute, breaking the WP:3RR, and then broken WP:INVOLVED as well by using the tools to protect your version? Please unprotect and discuss issues on the talk page, as you know you should.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is blocked again for a week. Case closed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've CU-blocked the IP, a LTA, for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, I fully support Materialscientists decision to protect the two articles in question. BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * raises a fair point of course; is there a potential issue of WP:ADMINCOND here? ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Had it been a regular editor, maybe. But here Materialscientist actually helped the project as the IP was an IP sock. Who has used at least two IPs to harrass me and others. I see no issues here. That is my point of view here.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also note a misuse of the rollback tool. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is not OK to use use the tools to protect an article and edit war over something that is not vandalism. you should not be condoning this kind of abuse, it gives admins a bad name in the wider community.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My question is, is this a one-off occurence of possible misuse or is there an history of misuse of tools by this admin. BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not saying there's a history of misuse, nor am I calling for any action against Materialscientist beyond a simple WP:TROUT. I just think we should call a spade a spade and not defend it because the IP has turned out to be a sock. If Materialscientist had thought at the time that the IP was a sock then they should have blocked on the spot citing that reasoning, or gone to SPI and presented the evidence. I didn't see evidence of that though, it just looked like a conventional edit war over whether or not to bold a couple of terms in the lede of the article. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 and BabbaQ. I am not blaming, opposing or supporting your decision to block the IP, but what reason do you have for this action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbb234 (talk • contribs)

Sub-optimal behaviour from violating 3RR. Hopefully they will return to acknowledge this and we can move on &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just had a look. I reverted Materialscientist because the IP's side of the edit war made the article better. I also added a source for some of the unreferenced content, and formatted a few of the bare URLs. Next time try improving the encyclopedia instead of getting involved in silly edit wars. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No response to several questions about his conduct; no justification for breaking 3rr; no attempt to justify using rollback inappropriately; no explanation for protecting an article to "win" a content dispute. His one terse response here indicates quite some contempt for his fellow editors, doesn't it? 46.233.116.167 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, Serial Number 54129, Willbb234, MSGJ, and assorted IPs, you are firmly reminded that WP:3RRNO specifically exempts reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users — you may go to 100RR without being sanctionable. WP:ROLLBACK permits using the tool on sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. Moreover, WP:INVOLVED permits things that any reasonable admin would do, and any reasonable admin would take actions to stop socks of banned users. Don't go harassing an admin for doing exactly what an admin's supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah nice one . They are indeed a dedicated and committed sock fighter, but, fyi, edits such as these are neither blatant vandalism nor block evasion. (Incidentally, MS is a CU—a simple edit-summary on the first undo saying so would have probably avoided this whole messy discussion; it would certainly have alleviated my concerns.) Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That edit has nothing to do with this section. If there appears to be a pattern of wrongful rollbacks, then a new section over at WP:ANI should be started, where that can be the subject of focus and discussed. This goes for any user. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but either way I don't appreciate being accused of "harrassing" for simply holding an administrator to account. As I stated above, and SN has said here, there was no evidence at the time that MS thought the IP was a sock, and if they thought that they were a sock, then the correct course of action was to block, not to start engaging in a rollback-and-protect war over a content dispute. As I also said above, I have no evidence this is a pattern and would be happy to put it down to simple Wikistress - hell knows, we've all been there. But for to launch an attack on me for and others named, simply for questioning this, is beyond the pale. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Materialscientist gave one response here, which in no way justified their actions and did not even attempt to. Their stonewalling indicates contempt for the rules and for those seeking clarification. I find that deeply inappropriate and I find User:Nyttend's personal attacks and whitewashing inappropriate as well. The fact is that User:Materialscientist consciously broke the 3rr because they felt entitled to break it, not because they thought there was a legitimate exemption. 82.132.220.149 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone want to explain how "Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not)." is an appropriate justification for breaking the 3rr? And how simple stonewalling in the face of queries about your conduct is appropriate behaviour for an administrator? 82.13.108.115 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Suddenly two IPs appear out of nowhere. What do you say User:Bbb23. BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They're both Vote (X) for Change; ironically the points they are making are rather valid. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Time to drop this stick and move on I guess. BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice for those who are lucky not be be involved. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest socks blocked, everybody stop feeding the troll.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented of any sock puppetry. It was not claimed by User:Materialscientist, who continues to stonewall when facing legitimate questions about why they broke the 3rr, why they misused and continue to misuse rollback, and why they protected two articles to win the upper hand in a content dispute. Their silence speaks volumes. The sock puppet allegations seem to be an attempt by his friends to obstruct scrutiny by inventing post hoc justifications for rule violations. Their grievous insults against the several editors with concerns really is appalling. Why is user:Materialscientist exempt from the rules governing editorial behaviour and the use of administrative tools? 82.132.220.232 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Acroterion - Sadly another IP. BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897772099 by Psantora (talk) Please add more reliable sources to establish its current use and the impact the term has had on its field. An article about a neologism cannot cited with primary sources alone. Neither of you have bothered to discuss this or given a satisfactory reason for it's removal."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897756267 by DeRossitt (talk) You stop."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897755528 by DeRossitt (talk) That's not an explanation. Please take it to talk."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 897755305 by DeRossitt (talk) No explanation for removal"


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


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


 * Comments:

On 13 May 2019, Bacondrum also broke 3RR. w umbolo  ^^^  13:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C 18:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Protected article and both parties warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Agnihotri&type=revision&diff=897944651&oldid=897942347
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jaydayal (talk): Nope. (Twinkle)"


 * 1)  "Undid revision 897938821 by Jaydayal (talk)//Do not care. Talk-page is that way."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897938742 by Jaydayal (talk)/Can't you read the sources?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897938290 by Jaydayal (talk)/Poor English"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Winged, please follow BRD or at least discuss on article talk page */"


 * Comments:

The editor is experienced and should be aware of 3rr rule. I updated a libelous comment on a BLP keeping all references intact and effectively stating same thing. But I am reverted repeatedly within minutes without any practical discussion on talk page except comment in revert saying "poor English". He is stating that BRD means I am required to demonstrate the absence of something before editing the article and he gets the privilege to keep the content in the article otherwise. I do not think BRD meant this, I can be wrong but this is very counter intuitive. Jaydayal (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has been drawing a constant stream of white-washing attempts, after the subject asked for help over Twitter. He needs to discuss the stuff over t/p, prior to messing 'bout with longstanding content. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been imploring you to come to talk page like in earlier content disputes. Last time also you did continuous revert with comments like "fuck off". Just because I am little inexperienced here compared to you doesn't mean you are exempt from BRD or BLP guidelines. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the two parties are now discussing this on the talk page, and nobody has broken 3RR. I encourage both parties to continue that discussion and come to an agreement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think the talk page discussion is a farce ... I say so because he just reverted once again. I don't know how can anyone have any kind of sensible discussion with this editor if he prefers to revert repeatedly and keep his version, simply sidelining all discussion. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What? I asked for your rationale behind your revert, over the t/p over which you noted:- If you think it is wrong please make improvements there or here, I am not a mad-reverter. If it makes sense I will be glad to acknowledge it.
 * You need to give up this stone-walling tactics. You were doing the same stuff over Talk:Parkala Massacre until I asked for community feedback, pending which, you are nowhere to be seen. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for 24 hours. Both of you need to stop edit warring and discuss the issues. If that doesn't work, please see Dispute resolution for next steps. If you continue to edit war then you will be blocked. I am marking this as "both parties warned". Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for 24 hours. Both of you need to stop edit warring and discuss the issues. If that doesn't work, please see Dispute resolution for next steps. If you continue to edit war then you will be blocked. I am marking this as "both parties warned". Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:82.207.187.7 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported: User talk:82.207.187.7

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: IP was previously blocked for edit warring on this page. Content it is trying to add violates WP:BLP. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User blocked 2 weeks. Article semi-protected &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:103.212.208.239 reported by User:211.26.200.179 (Result:Range blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Not exactly active, but 2 days ago, different chunks of material were removed, of which none are explained. All 7 of the edits listed above were made in a little over 12 hours, some of which was spent reverting more than 3 times. The user is currently blocked for this matter, and semi protection may be the best action to take.
 * Actually, it's 103.212.208.234 and the same but 239 not 234. None are blocked (one earlier this month for vandalism and one - either the same or other IP - is under the 103.212.208.0/24 range which is currently blocked). Sorry for the confusion.
 * This is just simple vandalism, I believe. Both IP addresses are already blocked from editing due to a block I placed on the range 103.212.208.0/24 on May 16 lasting for one week.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When editing both of their talk pages, only one said they were blocked. Thank you anyway and please watch the article for any issues. If I caused any confusion I'm sorry.211.26.200.179 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ag224 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


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

User continues to remove content from the article and infobox with explainations and willingness to discuss on the Talk page. Despite being reverted and notified multiple times. Gotitbro (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * While there have been some issues at the article, particularly around moving the page, there is not a 3RR with the moves and such done over the past month. All edits made since 30 April were one sequence by the reported user. That said, I have added the page to my watchlist so I can help keep an eye on what's going on. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:121.75.206.253 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion from in April through  on May 18

Comments:

Note the two different IP's but within a similar range. The IP at *.98 started this by inserting a biased view (one that is not documented in RS but I know exists, unfortunately making it fall under our "verifyability, not truth" mantra) about some games in this genre. Talk page discussions were started, explaining the policy and need for sources to show their point. You can see from talk page and main page history this user was engaged in a slow slow edit war over this, but they at least contributed a bit. Today IP *:253 has simply reverted the removal of the biased text that was similar to what *.98 was including (eg very likely the same user per DUCK) and has clearly passed 3RR. --M asem (t) 14:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 21.75.206.253 blocked for 24 hours for clearly going over 3RR. I haven't blocked 121.75.204.98 as it's probably stale. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Nice4What reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 897562755 by Cjdennis29 (talk) Reverting unsourced addition of Solange as a vocalist"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 897559076 by Hiimtired (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 897539226 by STATicVapor (talk) Compared both revisions and see nothing wrong, just a restoration of vocalists"
 * 4)  "Restoring other vocalists"
 * 5)  "/* Background */"
 * 6)  "Removing unsourced vocalists (again)"
 * 7)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "Removing unsourced vocalists (again)"
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"


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


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


 * Comments:

All of these edits are reverts or removals of other people's edits within a 24 hour period. User has multiple 3RR warnings from this month StaticVapor message me!   21:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure all of those are reverts, but I can't tell since the Previous version reverted to field was left blank. The Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page field was also left blank. I wonder why. What is this dispute even about? El_C 21:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The album Igor was released on Friday and the artist, Tyler, the Creator, decided not to include guest vocalists on the track list. Several editors were adding vocalists rumored to be on the album, so I'd remove the additions and decided to keep only the vocalists provided by Tyler on Instagram or reported on by reliable sources. For example, many early sources erroneously reported that Dev Hynes was a vocalist on the track "Earfquake", when it was later verified that this wasn't the case. (In fact, both Jessy Wilson and Solange Knowles were on the album but nobody reported this until Tyler shared the information.) With the article getting so many page views, I think it was in the best interest to remove unsourced rumors. I think the page has since been put under better protection/restrictions to prevent this.
 * Want to note that in regards to having multiple 3RR warnings this month, the most recent was from User:STATicVapor in regards to another album-related issue that was brought to a talk page. The other was in the context of an alternative cover an editor kept removing based on their personal preference; when given the offer to bring their thoughts about removing the cover to the talk page, they chose not to.
 * Some of the edits listed above are also not reverts.
 * Edit one was fixed based on a note added by another editor, not a removal of information.
 * Edit two was the removal of Frank Ocean as a guest vocalist. I added him initial, this is more of a self-revert. It seems there's significant doubt online that he's on the album and there's no official confirmation. Nice4What (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit three was a mistake and immediately reverted by myself. The editor didn't add a note that the vocalist had been provided by Tyler, so I was confused as to where the information came from.
 * Edit four was reverting the unsourced addition of a sample, whereas the songwriter added, Marvin Gaye, has no song writing credits on the album.
 * Edit five was an honest mistake that occurred due to mobile editing. User:STATicVapor knows this, seems unfair to list this without context.
 * Edit six, same as edit five.
 * Edit seven was the removal of unsourced vocalists such as slowthai, King Krule, Kali Uchis, though due to mobile editing some sourced vocalists that I added were accidentally removed.
 * Edit eight is same as edits five, six, and seven. All occurred due to the result of mobile editing, which I'm not too familiar with.
 * Sorry for the long write-up but I believe in a high traffic page, removing unsourced material proves to be more important than breaking 3RR. Nice4What (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I'm the one who applied those protections (via RfPP). I am still waiting for the previous version field to determine if these were even reverts. But is the edit war (whatever it is about — which has yet to be established) still at risk of resuming, even? El_C 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess that twinkle does not give the previous version field option so I was not aware. This is not a specific edit war, it is more a user doing more than three reverts on a page within a 24 hour period and continuing to revert after being warned that their reverts were not exceptions to 3RR. StaticVapor message me!   22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting unsourced additions about living people is exempt, however. As for the edit war, it's over now, isn't it?. El_C 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the majority of these reverts are related to BLP content as the edits are regarding a released album, with the edits not related to the artists personal life. This is more about violating 3rr or coming close to it over and over again on multiple articles, not an ongoing edit war. I know blocks are not punitive, but this is not okay. Clearly the user did not listen to my talk page message when I told them to stop reverting others. StaticVapor message me!   22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not trying to annoy you with a ping, just wanted you to know I responded. Also wanted to note this user is now WP:HOUNDING me and my talk page and threatening retaliation. It just bother me that they always keep reverting up to and beyond 3rr, so I felt notifying administrators was important. My recent talk page messaged seemed to go unheaded. This users edits are mostly positive, but there seems to no care when caught in editing disputes/being reverted by others. The only times I reverted here was to fix their copy pasting of the article twice. StaticVapor message me!   22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My reverts were not disruptive, even if they exceeded 3RR, and were preventing the addition of unsourced vocalists as you had been doing the week prior. As an experience editor, you should know better than to be annoyed by a violation of 3RR just because it's a violation; rather, you should understand the nature of these edits. It feels personal knowing how the previous regarding the album Supermarket went down. Also, the edit war is over. There's no point in reporting as it wouldn't add to anything blocking either of us. Hoping for the best. Nice4What (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit war seems to be over with new accounts being preventing from editing, leading to decrease in addition of unsourced information. Wanted o point out I've given StaticVapor a warning since they also seemed to have reverted three times in 24 hours on the same article too. User has since removed my warning calling it 'bogus'. Nice4What (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Is a revert of this edit
 * 2. Was a sneaky way to revert content that was added in the last day, it removed the content using a hidden note, rather than actually removing it.
 * 3. Was a revert based on edit summary (it was self reverted right after). These three edits came after the 3RR warning, which should have not been needed since they have multiple of those on their talk page already.
 * 4, 5, and 6. Are clearly reverts based on edit summaries.
 * 7. Removed content that was added by others, this edit being an example.
 * 8. Also clearly a revert based on edit summary. StaticVapor message me!   22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. The note was kept explaining the difference between fifth and sixth, not a removal.
 * 2. I added Frank Ocean. Without reliable confirmation, I removed Frank Ocean. Come on, "sneaky"?
 * 3. Doesn't matter after the warning when it was clear that unsourced vocalists should be reverted regardless. Also, the fact that I self-reverted shows it was an honest mistake.
 * 4, 5, 6 and 8 are reverts but I explained why: it was due to technical difficulties.
 * 7. Yes, once again, an example of users adding guest vocalists listed on Genius despite a warning embedded pointing out not to use that site as a source.
 * Useless to go back and forth and highlight "reverts" with out context as you're doing. Nice4What (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

. Although 3RR was violated yesterday (though exempt edits bring this down to the minimal 4 reverts), the edit war(s) itself does not appear likely to arise again any time soon. User is warned that if 3RR is breached again, the block duration would be longer than a first time offense, however. El_C 22:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Genuine questions just for a better understanding of the process, but regarding User:STATicVapor also violating 3RR, would I need to make a separate report or would they be given a warning with a future longer block duration as well? Nice4What (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice4What, sorry I missed this. You can provide evidence of that right here. El_C 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought it up on STATicVapor's talk page but they removed the message. I'm not trying to get them banned, I just want to better understand 3RR and edit warring. Nice4What (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You need four, not three, reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 00:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thank you. Nice4What (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Novel compound reported by User:Nice4What (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:55, 21 May 2019‎ "No, the fact that abortion survivor Claire Culwell testified is extremely factual and NPOV. Nice4What's undoing of this edit is extremely POV."
 * 2) 20:11, 21 May 2019‎ "Snooganssnoogans, are you suggesting the source I cited got it wrong, and abortion survivor Claire Culwell in fact did *not* testify in favor of Senate Bill 9? A pretty transparent attempt to insert your NPOV, but fine, I found a different source – the WDRN News web site."
 * 3) 22:33, 21 May 2019‎ "Restoring properly-cited, notable information that was removed by an extremely POV edit."
 * 4) 00:31, 22 May 2019 "When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, straightforward and objective word one can possibly use. Nice4What has been deleting the word "survivor" in an attempt to advance a non-neutral POV. Jessen and Ohden choose to self-identify as an "abortion survivors"; should we not respect the choices of these women?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:41, 21 May 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:38, 21 May 2019

Comments:

User keeps adding the term "abortion survivor" despite a long talk page discussion attempting to explain that the term is against WP:NPOV. Doesn't seem to care, continues to engage in edit war and doesn't seem to be willing to stop. Also created the category Category:Abortion survivors. I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page for the Heartbeat bill article to better understand the editor's motives. May be violation of WP:GS#Abortion though the pages aren't marked as such. Nice4What (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When discussing a person who has survived an abortion, "abortion survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, objective and straightforward phrase that can be used. User Nice4What keeps deleting this term, in multiple articles, in an attempt to advance his or her non-neutral POV about abortion.  User Nice4What does not even respect the choice of women who choose to self-identify as "abortion survivors." Novel compound (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear that this editor strongly believes "abortion survivor" is the "most neutral" and continues to edit in such a manner despite talk page consensus and discussion. I think it shows that the user saying shows an attempt to evoke sympathy through emotions, implying that I'm not making my edits based on WP:NPOV but rather a lack of personal respect (which is an unfounded accusation). I suggest any admin to read this user's comments on Caitlyn Jenner in the linked discussion above. Nice4What (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

. This is not the place to debate the content, and it is certainly not the place (hint: there is no place) for innuendo, Novel compound. Anyway, only three reverts are listed, the first link is the original edit — Previous version reverted to field was left blank, that's where the link for the original edit should have gone. Novel compound is cautioned, however, against making any more reverts, as they are at the 3RR limit. El_C 01:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Want to note that the first link is actually the first revert, not the original edit. Here is the original addition of the term "abortion survivor" to the article. Nice4What (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Heartbeat bill is under general sanctions and a 1RR limit applies. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The last edit listed (00:31, 22 May 2019) involves a different article. El_C 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User was not notified about that, however. They have been notified now. El_C 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor continues to show lack of respect for WP:NPOV on discussion for deleting the category they created. Continuing and being frankly open about their pro-life/anti-abortion views, which is not necessarily an issue, yet they accuse the reverting of their biased edits as being against neutrality. Nice4What (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen some innuendo, and personal comments not in good faith, but nothing has been pointed out to me that rises to the level of an actual personal attack. They are entitled to their point of view, of course, so long as they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which from now on they are expected to do, closely. El_C 01:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a more visible DS instead of GS notice to the talk page and the GS edit notice the mainspace. Procedurally, it's perhaps less than ideal to have DS and GS side by side (as is the case with Abortion), but the pragmatic aim of notifying users about 1RR in the most visible way possible is what's important, I think. El_C 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User is continuing to violate 1RR, seen reverting here by readding the term "abortion survivor" to the article Melissa Ohden despite warnings after doing so on the article Gianna Jessen. From revert description:

"When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, straightforward and objective word one can possibly use. Nice4What has been deleting the word "survivor" in multiple articles, in an attempt to advance a non-neutral POV. Jessen and Ohden choose to self-identify as an "abortion survivors"; should we not respect the choices of these women?"

- Novel compound, 03:46, 22 May 2019


 * I don't believe I can revert these with out violating 1RR myself, but I believe it's unfair that despite talk page discussions, there is now nothing that can be done to revert these disruptive edits. Nice4What (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That article is not subject to 1RR. But I take a dim view of adding that term across multiple articles while discussion as to its usage is still ongoing. El_C 04:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be edit warring? And would I then be allowed to revert these edits until the discussion on the term "abortion survivor" is terminated? Nice4What (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles are now subject to 1RR (notices added). The term should not be added until there is consensus is reached as to its overall usage. El_C 13:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:14.202.143.218 (Result: No vioaltion)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

User start an Editwar and vandalism, according to his talk page he was also today warned by an administrator because he made personal attacks against another user. I wish him no bad but a little break would be alright. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I get it now; using various IP's to make it look like I'm edit warring with everyone. Read 3R, Quotations and Hounding. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

. You need four (not three) reverts to violate 3RR. They are using the talk page, why aren't you, IP? El_C 13:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know if you have something against IP addresses but apparently you are always starting to clash with IP adresses. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has to do with them being IPs — I think a lot of the POV pushing and policy and guideline violations that Ahmedo Semsurî is encountering is coming from single-purpose accounts who mostly don't bother to register a username. El_C 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if that does not count as an editwar, then the discussion is over, no one is forced to create an account and his behavior is more than unusual. every day dozens of articles (and always the same) delete thousands of bytes. As i saw his contributions.14.202.143.218 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It counts as an edit war (it takes at east two to have one, though), but 3RR was no breached. El_C 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be easier for everyone if you used just one IP, or registered a user name. All these multiple IPs you're using make things needlessly complicated and confusing. El_C 13:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this count as an editwar than here is a violation: „user agrees to stop edit warring“ dont know if the links works but you can look on his blog log. As i saw various Ip and he are involved in clashes i saw his blog log. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm inclined to give some leeway when it comes to reverting single-purpose accounts. El_C 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw his contributions. Great. he tagges every IP as a sock puppet and then he calls all IPs with which he comes in clash as a sock puppet. also the violation of the last block he gets through without punishment. Just reverted two times because i thought quotes are fine. I wish you a nice day if you decide not to do anything. 14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * he write here „I think I get it now; using various IP's to make it look like I'm edit warring with everyone.“ this is he doing to every ip who he is involved to clashes with them. He tagging every ip as sock puppet and giving them names and always it seems like he know him. that is also a strange behavior. He also started to get personal. Just look at his contributions who he is in clashes with various ips.14.202.143.218 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 reported by User:Doc James (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Initially added "Long-term adverse effects" May 22nd 18:15


 * 1) Revert 1  Re added "Long-term adverse effects" May 23 03:03am
 * 2) Revert 2  Re added "Long-term adverse effects" May 23 11:10am
 * 3) Revert 3  Re added "Long-term adverse effects" May 23 11:15am
 * 4) Revert 4  Re added "Long-term adverse effects" May 23 11:29am

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Additionally we have a RfC that is fairly clear HERE. It does not indicate that we should have two level two headings for "side effects" / "adverse effects". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 11:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Daemonickangaroo2018 reported by User:ForzaDrums (Result: No violation Reporter checkuser blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 898406482 by 109.152.199.146 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 898406482 by 109.152.199.146 (talk)"
 * 3)  "He is not president of Guernsey"
 * 4)  "revert vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * 1) Did User:ForzaDrums actually look at the edits that I was reverting? They were simple vandalism. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) You violated the Three revert rule by making 4 reverts which justifies this report. ForzaDrums (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

. Exempt by WP:3RRNO — Guernsey F.C. is, indeed, not Guernsey. El_C 11:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note:Reporter blocked as a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:AudreyAvonley reported by User:Jonjonjohny (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  what they remove
 * 2)  The state I revert it to
 * 3) They have removed from the content three times (see the edit history below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not engaged in a discussion per se, but I have in my edits offered for us to talk about what they believe is incorrect or unsourced, I put warnings on their talk page which they haven't responded to

Comments:

They keep saying that the content is unsourced despite having the reputable sources (BBC / Guardian) used. They say the info is also incorrect, though again, is sourced. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC) It is not clear how to discuss this on ‘talk pages’ and I have attempted to explain that incorrect information is being posted through editing the page. Nowhere in any of the sources does it say that Labour entered into a confidence and supply agreement with the Lib Dems in Portsmouth -it doesn’t say this as this is not true! Therefore I have been removing this information. I have also pointed out that another paragraph is littered with spelling mistakes and errors but these keep being reverted back. If you could explain to me how to discuss this with the user who keeps posting incorrect information then I will do!
 * The reversions have not been within 24 hours, so I'm going to try another warning as the user is communicating through edit summaries; suggest start a talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RockingGeo reported by User:Zefr (Result: 60 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Philosophy */ Ok, I improved the slaughterhouse section's references and relevance. I hope this is satisfactory."
 * 2)  "/* Philosophy  */ Added humanitarian veganism section, need to clean up refs"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 898690266 by Doc James (talk) Disease prevention thru veganism is on topic. The refs are on the further pages. Please help add them."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 898690771 by Doc James (talk) Harvard Medical School is definitely an academic/government body on nutrition."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2019 */ WP:WAR"
 * 2)   "/* May 2019 */ r"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Veganism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Refs */ cmt"
 * 2)   "/* Refs */ cmt"


 * Comments:

The user is impatient to add a substantial mass of controversial content with poor sources, while not engaging in narrowing the message or gaining consensus. Stubborn behavior and persistence without addressing other editors' concerns on the talk page are displayed. Zefr (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:173.66.93.114 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Also edit warring at G-type main-sequence star and K-type main-sequence star. The edits are probably not malicious, simply uncited and contrary to the cited reference. At this point, we simply need to get the editor's attention. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 01:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As an indicator that we need to get the editor's attention, we see this edit, with the comment: Fixed typo that some random person keeps bringing back. This person is probably an unauthorized user.)

. El_C 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:174.111.60.129 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* The flood and the creation narrative */Concise clarification"
 * 2)  "/* Comparative narratives */Clarified titles, removed biased language."
 * 3)  "/* Sources */Clarification of story elements, and removal of discriminatory language."
 * 4)  "Clarified terms"
 * 5)  "Removed discriminatory phrasing"
 * 1)  "Removed discriminatory phrasing"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Genesis flood narrative. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Pctec77. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Usual creationist POV-pushing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be better to draft an SPI report. Anyway, you've left the Previous version reverted to field blank, so it's difficult to tell whether these are actually reverts, but at a glance, it appears that they are not. El_C 18:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours by User:Bishonen for tendentious editing and likely sockpuppetry, as a result of Sockpuppet investigations/Pctec77. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:5.144.223.37 reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: 2 month semi)
Page:

User being reported: (earlier IPs: 46.177.243.141, 46.177.73.231, 46.177.8.100)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts on 24 May, continuing with another on 26 May. No talkpage activity. Edit summaries show determination to push uncited fringe pseudo-scholarship in the article (this is essentially a flat-earth claim, against long-established, completely unanimous scholarly consensus). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. Semi for 2 months. We've indulged this for long enough. El_C 09:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Editoraust reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [898578437]

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

Comments:

This school article has a complicated recent edit history. (I have tried to ascertain the version before edit warring started, but may not have got this correct.)

There are earlier similar reverts by User:Nibbashrek. I and other editors have posted on Editoraust's Talk page. I have also raised the issue on the article's Talk page. Editoraust's most recent post on the article's Talk page says that other editors are motivated by jealousy. I have limited experience in dealing with edit warring so I apologise if it is a mistake to bring this here - but if so, would appreciate guidance. Many thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Abdnow reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: 72 hours Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "terrorist bonadea"
 * 2)  "Bonadea supporter of extremist"
 * 3)  "Reverted fake edits by extremist named bonadea"
 * 1)  "Bonadea supporter of extremist"
 * 2)  "Reverted fake edits by extremist named bonadea"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User seems to be against the inclusion of a prophet of a heterodox Muslim group. Also troubling is the labeling of another editor as an "extremist" and "terrorist" as seen in the edit summaries and User talk:Abdnow. Maybe it's a language thing and they mean "vandal", which is still problematic. FyzixFighter (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. Blocked the user via RfPP. El_C 18:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:AntonSamuel reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Warned/Self-revert 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 2RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the 1 revert/24 hours rule. Also, this article needs a neutral admin to look at it from a neutrality and source credibility point of view. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Why did you not inform the user about this report? Please do so. El_C 07:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of the 1RR rule for this page, I was following the guide for how to deal with disruptive editing on Disruptive editing, and reverted and left a message on the talk page as it instructed. I will self-revert for now. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. User has self-reverted. El_C 07:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User AntonSamuel has come back and reverted the same edit from yesterday. This shows their bad faith attitude. He has done this so many times in the past on that same page. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He had said "I will self-revert for now." (emphasis mine) should have blocked then, and WP:GAMING has clearly occurred now.  w umbolo   ^^^  20:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. Reverting once 24 hours has passed is gaming the system and I'll be having none of it. El_C 20:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wumbolo and El C. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kingerikthesecond reported by User:TheLegoController (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

. Too many mandatory fields were left blank. El_C 07:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kingerikthesecond reported by User:TheLegoController (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:


 * I am absolutely astounded by the edit war at the Clarkson article. Three editors have been edit-warring recently about whether to use a serial comma in a list of occupations in the lead (in order of most recent to oldest):, , and . The person or persons on the other side are various IPs. Then along comes a brand new account, who doesn't appear to have anything to do with this article, who files this report. First, a serial comma is optional, and in this instance there is NO ambiguity if it's used or not used. Second, regardless of whether there is socking going on, there is no reason for these users to be edit-warring. The article has been semi-protected, which now precludes the IPs from continuing the battle, but, as far as I'm concerned, all three users are warned against repeating this preposterous conduct in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that I decline the same report (above) on the basis that too many mandatory fields were left blank, so the user then simply resubmit it with those mandatory fields now omitted! Wow. El_C 13:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice the report above (although I knew the report was incomplete).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There was no edit-warring going on here. Just a lot of WP:BADSOCK activity. Current consensus seems to revolve around maintaining the Oxford Comma, and the page was previously protected for the same reason (IP editor using multiple IPs as an attempt to remove the comma). -- Erik  ( ここで私と話してください ) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now started a discussion on the article's talk page. Will try to build a consensus around either keeping the comma or removing it. -- Erik  ( ここで私と話してください ) 14:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:93.138.179.92 reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 7)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 8)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 9)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 10)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 11)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 12)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 13)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 14)  - IP changed to 93.138.120.15
 * 15) ... - won't add anything else until IP address changes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP is making first edits on Wikipedia, does not understand how editing policy works, how and why article are titled as they are, does not have basic knowledge about the topic, ignored all warnings (in edit summaries, user and article talk pages), ignored to join a discussion at the talk page. It is pointless to ask anything further. I already requested a page protection.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is getting annoying. I don't support the IP editor, and I can't find a single reliable source that states his name as Šubić. -- Erik  ( ここで私と話してください ) 14:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * because it does not exist, only thing you could perhaps find is an explanation in Croatian that it is a modern invention, a Croatian variation of the name to not mistake him with great-grandson Miklós Zrínyi, which is wrong because the person and family never named themselves as such.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So Why  15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RockingGeo reported by User:Zefr (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 898989357 by Rmhermen (talk) See talk page"
 * 2)  "/* Occupational safety and health */ added content"
 * 3)  "/* Negative effects on slaughterhouse workers */ removed off topic material"
 * 1)  "/* Negative effects on slaughterhouse workers */ removed off topic material"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2019 */ WP:WAR"
 * 2)   "/* May 2019 */ r"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Veganism. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Vegetarianism. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Dairy farming. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned and served a 24 hr block yesterday for edit warring. Today, multiple additions of the same content were added (and reverted by several editors) from Pig slaughter, Agriculture, Sustainable agriculture, Vegetarianism, Animal husbandry, and approx 7 other articles, clearly soapboxing and non-WP:NPOV. No consensus supporting this viewpoint on any talk page. Just all around bad behavior. Zefr (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit war yesterday was about a different issue (a content dispute over the relation of veganism to slaughterhouse working conditions), and is currently being handled civilly. I realized though while making that edit that the conditions slaughterhouse workers face were not on any relevant page, so I added it to them. I'm not trying to soapbox, but I am trying to add content on an under-reported issue. I did not think I needed to gain consensus first (WP:BB) as the issue of the conditions slaughterhouse worker face seemed relevant to most parts of animal agriculture, though I've realized now that some people dispute the fact that slaughter is part of agriculture. As can be seen on the | agriculture talk page, I'm civilly discussing the content dispute now, and will refrain from any possible edit warring on the respective pages of dispute until the matter is settled. There's no need for any block.RockingGeo (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. I'm dissapointed to see a return to edit warring as soon as the block had expired. I'm also troubled by material having been duplicated across multiple articles. That is not appropriate. I rollbacked all of if, save Slaughterhouse, where it wasn't offtopic. You need to start using the talk page more to propose such substantive changes, and above all other things, arm yourself with patience. Not all your changes are gonna happen instantly, if at all. El_C 18:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Cdneh95 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – restoring Tyson Fury as lineal heavyweight champion, against RfC consensus.
 * 2)  – same.
 * 3)  – same.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: recent RfC at Talk:Tyson Fury on why WikiProject Boxing does not consider him the lineal heavyweight champion.

Comments:

User:Cdneh95 is edit warring against the above RfC consensus. No edit summaries or talk page response, and he's being disruptive across other articles related to boxing and mixed martial arts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 18:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Shworks999 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: 72 and 24 hours, respectively)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

These are the major reverts - they have made more edit warring reverts as well, and tag teamed with - all in all it's more like 9RR at this point. bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 18:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Shworks is a likely block evasion of Ilmulnafia based on behavioural similarities. Non-autoconfirmed Thommannasrani is apparently an alternate account of Shworks, online at the same time encouraging AJMAL to edit war. The same "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit" on edit summary and see the preview of these edits, both signatures boxed. Both account created around same time. And on the above incident, there was meatpuppetry - . Continental Rift (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Aron Manning reported by User:Marc Lacoste (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Aron Manning filed an entry at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

. Gaming 3RR is not going to work. El_C 18:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Response: Although this block has expired, I wasn't notified in time to respond, thus I'd like to point out some errors now:

None of the 5 diffs revert to "Previous version reverted to".

Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, revert to Diff 1 which is the first addition of a reference - a contribution, not a revert.


 * I re-added one reference 4 times, while OPs reverted (removed) said ref 5 times.
 * I did the edits about one day apart. Not to game the system, but to give time for the discussion:
 * I initated [content dispute] before my first revert (Diff 2).
 * OP reverted once more without response, only joining the dispute after Diff 3, at 03:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC).
 * I re-added the reference 2 more times because OPs avoided answering my questions, responding with a threat and strawman arguments, creating a distracting wall-of-text instead of seeking consensus.
 * Diff 1 was reverted within 3 minutes by Andrewgprout, although he never contributed to the page. In 3 days [he had 3 edits], each just reverting my edits. This made me think I was targeted.
 * Marc Lacoste delayed notifying me of the AN/EW report by 1.5 hours, and it was decided within 4 hours, thus I had no time to point out the errors.
 * I filed the AN/I report ca. 10 hours before this AN/EW report, listing OPs' 5 reverts with timestamps.
 * I stopped participating in the edit war before filing [the AN/I report], thus the block was unnecessary to prevent further EW. The last revert was made by Marc Lacoste (diff) 11 minutes after my edit. I did not re-engage for 13 hours before the block: since 05:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC).
 * If any WP:GAMING happened, it was: doing reverts by two users, and mischaracterizing a contribution as a revert. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    19:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste reported by User:Aron Manning (Result: stale)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 09:12, 20 May 2019‎ on Boeing 737 MAX groundings 20 May
 * 07:47, 23 May 2019 on Boeing 737 MAX groundings 23 May
 * 05:41, 24 May 2019 on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System 24 May

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3 reverts in less than 3 hours

Boeing 737 MAX groundings 21 May (history).
 * 1) 05:53, 21 May 2019‎
 * 2) 07:29, 21 May 2019‎
 * 3) 08:22, 21 May 2019‎

Diffs of the user's reverts 2: 4 reverts in 3 days

Boeing 737 MAX groundings 23 May:
 * 1) 05:22, 23 May 2019‎
 * 2) 10:51, 23 May 2019‎

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System 24-26 May:
 * 1) 04:44, 25 May 2019‎  -196‎ bytes
 * 2) 05:16, 26 May 2019‎  -196‎ bytes (11 minutes after reverted edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 08:45, 21 May 2019
 * 06:19, 26 May 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 17:52, 21 May 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings 21 May
 * 11:25, 23 May 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings 23 May
 * 21:50, 24 May 2019 Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System 24 May

Comments:


 * The 2 recent EWs are made collaboratively with Andrewgprout, similarly to what WP:NINJA describes. See [the AN/I report] for the diffs interleaved.
 * In last EW (Mcas) Marc ignored the reason to include the reference [in the dispute], but in the end [added the source anyway] to External Links (after it was reverted 5 times), thus contradicting his own removal. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    02:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Aron Manning (Result: stale)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 07:47, 23 May 2019 on Boeing 737 MAX groundings 23 May
 * 05:41, 24 May 2019 on Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System 24 May

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 reverts in 3 days

Boeing 737 MAX groundings 23 May:
 * 1) 09:40, 23 May 2019‎

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System 24-26 May:
 * 1) 21:01, 24 May 2019‎  -196‎ bytes (3 minutes after reverted edit)
 * 2) 01:48, 25 May 2019‎  -196‎ bytes
 * 3) 04:34, 26 May 2019‎  -196‎ bytes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 06:37, 26 May 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 13:32, 21 May 2019 Dispute: Summary of consensus 21 May
 * 21:50, 24 May 2019 Mcas 24 May

Comments:


 * The 2 recent EWs are made collaboratively with Marc Lacoste, similarly to what WP:NINJA describes. See [the AN/I report] for the diffs interleaved.
 * In last EW (Mcas) Andrew ignored the reason to include the reference [in the dispute], made quite a few uncivil remarks and strawman arguments instead. Addition of that reference is a minor detail, an experienced editor should know better than to incite an edit war over such insignificant content. — Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    02:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:86.176.181.156 reported by User:Corwin of Amber (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The template is persistently vandalized by 86.176.181.156. He had been warned but continues to vandalize the template. -- Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC).

User:Kleuske reported by User:Legitimate discourse (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:


 * Filer blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Aron Manning (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 5 reverts in 32 hours
 * 1) 21:01, 24 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout)   -196‎ bytes (3 minutes after reverted edit)
 * 2) 01:48, 25 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout)   -196‎ bytes
 * 3) 04:44, 25 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)   -196‎ bytes
 * 4) 04:34, 26 May 2019‎ (Andrewgprout)   -196‎ bytes
 * 5) 05:16, 26 May 2019‎ (Marc Lacoste)   -196‎ bytes (11 minutes after reverted edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

— Aron M🍂 <small style="background:#af01;box-shadow:#af03 0 0 8px">(🛄📤)    14:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed stale cases of EW, the remaining entries are from the most recent EW. Please do not dismiss with "Stale": this report was delayed by the [erroneous report of OPs]. This EW does not seem to be over, Andrewgprout just recently [edited my contribution] within 4 minutes.
 * This EW was a team effort by OPs, reminiscent of WP:NINJA tactics. Andrewgprout's [first ever edits on the article] are these reverts.
 * OPs debate the addition of a second reference, but finally Marc himself [added the source] (after it was reverted 5 times) to External Links, proving the reverts were demonstrating a point.
 * OPs ignored my effort to seek consensus by reverting once again before answering to [the dispute] with uncivil personal remarks and strawman arguments.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

DenSportgladeSk%C3%A5ningen reported by User:TheLegoController (Result: )
Page: Template:2018–19 EFL Championship table

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

Yes they are undoing vandalism but all these constant reverts are creating problems TheLegoController (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize that there were so many edits, My intention was to get rid of vandalism and that the table would look like it should. It is not as easy on enwp as on svwp to ask for help from the administrators. I'm still learning how to ask for help from admin on enwp. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DenSportgladeSk%C3%A5ningen was absolutely right to revert vandalism. User:TheLegoController might be the same person as User:86.176.181.156 mentioned in the section above. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted, just try to be a bit more careful even in cases of vandalism its easy for things to get heated sometimes. TheLegoController (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolved amicably, no need for administrator intervention. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:92.170.73.92 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: Ahmedo Semsurî started two Editwars in two articles. I know he don’t break the 3RR but he started always Editwarring and according to his last block he agreed to stop Editwarring. Here in the Laks (Iran) article:

And here in the Feylis article: 92.170.73.92 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:93.138.79.47 reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Warned 60 hours, both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  - "Are you an idiot?"
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: He was initially reverted by another editor. This is a sock-IP of two IPs (93.138.179.92 and 93.138.120.15) who two-days before got reported for the same 3RR violation because disruptively edited related article Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Also, the IP is disruptively editing and personally attacking editors at the Talk:Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Please block these IPs as are disrupting normal editing progress and discussion.

You should be banished because you are faking Croatian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.79.47 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

. I left the users a warning about 3RR and NPA on their user talk page. I note that Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page field has the same diff as the field that preceded it. That is to say: the article talk page has not been used since August 2018. El_C 06:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the IP continues to disruptively edit the talk page. I will make one more revert of Šubić family article, it will show you the IP will continue to revert it. I emphasize, all previous attempts to follow BRD and join the discussion were in vain. We are dealing without obvious disruptive behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * as said, the IP immediatelly made a revert.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 06:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:延妮珍娟琦华 reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "what's wrong with you"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 899340317 by Snowflake91 (talk)i can fix or add the source.what you should do is fix the source not just undo"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 899339691 by Alexanderlee (talk)roles are needed, others also have it"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 899338125 by Snowflake91 (talk)show it"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 899331256 by Snowflake91 (talk)"
 * 6)  "this page is the only one that did not show members’real names in all language.  Undid revision 899308631 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 899308441 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 899308441 by Alexanderlee (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warnings were given but user removed them from talk page, also suggestions by me and other users in page edit summary. Request to discuss on talk page have been so far ignored. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

this one keeps undoing, i don't have time to correct mistakes.延妮珍娟琦华 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that not having time to correct things what you see as mistakes and others disagree with/see as unconstructive edits is not a valid argument nor is not reading provided guidelines. Also I would prefer if you not call me "this one", or asks things like "what is wrong with you". I'm not a bot but a person. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * also,, please don't use rollback to revert over a content dispute in the future :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment noted, will be more careful and use it only on clear cases of vandalism. Looking at it Undo or TW would have been plenty. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "elaborated citation"
 * 2)  "Revert vandalism"
 * 3)  "Reverting vandalism"
 * 4)  "Removed without reason"
 * 5)  "Minor addition"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Political violence in the lede */ stick"


 * Comments:

Previously blocked twice for this same edit war. Repeated warnings all removed from talk page. – bradv 🍁  16:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I am aware that this report comes about 10 hours after the last revert. However, this issue has persisted for months, and I see no indication anywhere that CordialGreenery will stop on their own. – bradv 🍁  16:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As you said, the actual edit war is stale, so a block right now would be punishment. However, I have given them a direct personal warning that leaves no room for ambiguity; if they continue to disrupt the article, ping me and I'll block them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:47.152.134.105 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: semi)
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:

Multiple users have explained to this editor why the proposed change is OR and not supported. As the editor has continued to revert even after the warning and those explanations, I don't believe they intend to stop at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it is not entirely unsupported and is not entirely OR. She may even be right, that the weight of reliable sources favors the alternative she prefers, but such a consensus will only emerge following discussion, but IP just keeps putting the contested text back in without letting the discussion play out in a meaningful way. Explicit WP:SOAPBOX mentality, stating she wants to use Wikipedia to get out the truth, and dismisses the applicability of any policy that stands in her way. Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

. Page semiprotected by Orangemike. El_C 19:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:50.121.222.10 reported by User:Funplussmart (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The information about me was incorrect/inaccurate."
 * 2)  "I am jacky. Please do not reverse the changes as they are incorrect."
 * 3)  "THIS IS JACKY. I have tried to request for the information to be deleted as it’s incorrect and don’t know any other way. Please do not reverse the changes as the information there is incorrect, it can potentially hurt me! This is the only way I know how to remove the information. Thanks"
 * 4)  "I am Jacky! Please do not revert the information on the page as it’s incorrect, it can potentially harm me!!!"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Also similar edits from IP 45.41.76.238. I've pointed that IP to WP:OTRS, but no response. It's sourced content so can't just be removed by random IPs claiming to be the person. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

. Semi for 2 weeks. I'm not seeing a BLP violation. Perhaps there is one after all, so the individual is welcome to make their case on the article talk page. El_C 20:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:GergisBaki reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 899388237 by Alduin2000 (talk) adding RS to substantiate source. See talk page."
 * 2)  "Mention of the police investigation is undue for the lede. A brief (one-sentence) explanation of the comments is not. If someone thinks this is poorly written, come up with a new version, don't obfuscate"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 899315837 by SVTCobra (talk) this previous version is whitewashing, comments notable enough to have a sentence in lede."
 * 4)  "removing synthesis"
 * 5)  "Per WP:Notable. Both these comments belong in the lede as the most notable things Benjamin has done (Notability isn't a matter of our opinion but RS mentions)"
 * 6)  "too much detail for lede. We can quote in body."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 899080836 by Alduin2000 (talk) Both comments belong in the lede as both received widespread coverage. His response is required per BLP"
 * 8)  "These details are relevant to the lede, because this event (the comments about rape) are the thing he is most notable for, in terms of RS coverage (our standard for notability)"


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

A lot of discussion apparently happening on the talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I am following instruction by admin. w umbolo  ^^^  20:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that all of these are reverts, because the Previous version reverted to field was left blank. El_C 20:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SG1994! reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://tvtr..."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have proof. Add this link to the citation then. https://books.google.com/books?id=uY8700WJy_gC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=snippet&q=Twelve%20&f=false"
 * 2)  "Leave it alone!!!"
 * 3)  "AnomieBOT don’t even think about editing this. Deb Aoki is wrong and she seems to have figured that out as she now agrees with Robin Brenner on her book and what the age range of Shonen manga actually is. https://books.google.com/books?id=uY8700WJy_gC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=snippet&q=Twelve%20&f=false"
 * 4)  "Deb Aoki is not that much of an expert and has been wrong at the time. There are tons of sources that state the targeted age range is 12 to 18. Also that site where she states this is old news. On her website she states Naruto, Dragon Ball and Inuyasha are for 12 and up readers. And those are Shonen. So she may have corrected her statement from before. But here are links to sites and manga guide books that say the age range is 12 to 18 and that it’s for young “teen” male readers.
 * 1)  "Deb Aoki is not that much of an expert and has been wrong at the time. There are tons of sources that state the targeted age range is 12 to 18. Also that site where she states this is old news. On her website she states Naruto, Dragon Ball and Inuyasha are for 12 and up readers. And those are Shonen. So she may have corrected her statement from before. But here are links to sites and manga guide books that say the age range is 12 to 18 and that it’s for young “teen” male readers.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shōnen manga. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is claiming that a source is "wrong" about the age range and that the age range is teen only. However, they are not providing any conclusive evidence from multiple sources, instead, they only cite one obscure source that agrees with them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 21:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Wainathan Cligne reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Previous reverts of the same kind:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (using sockpuppet)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_Story_(2020_film)&diff=898692819&oldid=898661575

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Wainathan Cligne has been edit warring on this matter since May 23. They have also been *uncivil* in edit summaries and have refused to cite any sources that might verify their assertion. After being warned by an admin, they have more recently used a *sockpuppet* anonymous account to continue edit warring Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:181.126.43.228 reported by User:LakesideMiners (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1990s */According to Vincent Waller, sexual orientation don't exist on Spongbob as well as none of the characters, i dare you all to ask him out. The show skews that rumor."
 * 2)  "/* 1990s */2002 sources isn't value, stop thinking that is this true. Spongebob is not an asexual icon. Throw him away from this site"
 * 3)  "/* 1990s */Don't Defend Him, he's not right. This old rumor remains useless."
 * 4)  "/* 1990s */Less Value, Your Ignorance trying to backpedal me from Telling The truth. Stay out of this, Pokelova. By the way, your Username Stinks."
 * 5)  "/* 1990s */I've already told you No, Spongebob is not pictured as asexual or anything. Besides, the crew are still ship teasing with him and Sandy until becomes a thing. 2005 news aren't value anymore"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 3 warning re. List of animated series with LGBT characters (HG) (3.4.6)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Harassment of other users on List of animated series with LGBT characters. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) N/A, user just keeps reverting even after being asked to go the the talk page.


 * Comments:

I asked him to talk it out on the talk page, but user is making personal attacks, and removing sourced content, and has been told to stop as well in edit summary.  LakesideMiners My Talk Page 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see much in the way of talk page discussion from you, either. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"/* 1990s */Didn't you heard what i said? . There's no sexual orientation on Spongebob neither all characters. Ask the producer-now exec. producer Vincent Waller, Please." TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional Diff:


 * Try starting a talk page discussion, otherwise you're edit warring too. Per the instructions when you file a report : "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too". This board is supposed to be for incidents where you have tried to stop the edit war at all costs and failed, and need admin help. We're not at that stage yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:PsichoPuzo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: 60 hours, OP)
Page:

User being reported:

The user aggressively reverts removal of unreferenced texts tagged since March 2018.

May 30 2019:
 * Reverrt 7
 * 11:31 (cur | prev) +2,227‎  PsichoPuzo talk contribs Undid revision 899539442 by Staszek Lem (talk) [rollback] Tag: Undo


 * Reverrt 6
 * 11:31 (cur | prev) +1,000‎  PsichoPuzo talk contribs Undid revision 899539230 by Staszek Lem (talk) Tag: Undo


 * Reverrt 5
 * 11:28 (cur | prev) +617‎  PsichoPuzo talk contribs sources at page's bottom Tag: Undo
 * 11:27 (cur | prev) -617‎  Staszek Lem talk contribs →‎18th century: rm unreferenced


 * Reverrt 4
 * 11:26 (cur | prev) +1,886‎  PsichoPuzo talk contribs if you will continue to delete text with sources there would be request to administration Tag: Undo
 * 11:24 (cur | prev) -1,886‎  Staszek Lem talk contribs →‎17th century: rm . the books were burned because they declared heretic, not because they were ukrainian


 * Reverrt 3
 * curprev 10:03, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +2,689‎  no, actually because of language, a lot of sources added, further deletion would be counted as vandalism undothank Tags: 2017 wikitext editor, PHP7
 * curprev 10:02, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 11,144 bytes -803‎  rm unreferenced for a year undo
 * curprev 10:01, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 11,947 bytes -1,678‎  →‎17th century: rm . the books were burned because they declared heretic, not because they were ukrainian undo


 * Reverrt 2
 * 10:00, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +208‎  Undid revision 899528027 by Staszek Lem (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
 * curprev 10:00, 30 May 2019‎ Staszek Lem talk contribs‎ 13,625 bytes -208‎  Reverted 1 edit by PsichoPuzo (talk): Please discuss in talk page (TW) undo Tag: Undo


 * Reverrt 1
 * 09:59, 30 May 2019‎ PsichoPuzo talk contribs‎ 13,833 bytes +208‎  Undid revision 899502425 by KIENGIR (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
 * curprev 06:55, 30 May 2019‎ KIENGIR talk contribs‎ 13,625 bytes -208‎  →‎17th century: I agree with Staszek Lem, this has nothing to with the issue, because the time of the Poish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to have Polish as official means no suppression, just because some of her historical regions today belong to Ukraine... undothank

Comments:


 * User aggressively remove sourced content with sources, . Also ignoring added sources: , and actually started this removal activity after sources were provided.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:JeansimmonsOLC reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Message re. Online Learning Consortium (HG) (3.4.8)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Online Learning Consortium. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Online Learning Consortium. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 19:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:OmoYoruba45 reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: No violation/malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

. Only two reverts listed, you need four to violate 3RR. Plus, several mandatory fields were left blank, to the point of making this report malformed. El_C 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr. Hamza Ebrahim reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: at the end of diff4 below


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "New wording"
 * 2)  "/* Treatment of Shias */"
 * 3)  "/* Treatment of Shias */"
 * 4) Consecutive edits made from 02:49, 29 May 2019 to 07:22, 29 May 2019
 * 5) Consecutive edits made from 22:45, 28 May 2019 to 01:01, 29 May 2019
 * 6) Consecutive edits made from 19:33, 26 May 2019 to 20:32, 26 May 2019
 * 1) Consecutive edits made from 19:33, 26 May 2019 to 20:32, 26 May 2019


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Muhammad bin Qasim and the Cursing of Ali */ Reply"


 * Comments:

This user is repeatedly reinstating contested content, and does not show any inclination to stop. The issues are not easy. Some religious folklore is being inserted into an important historical biography. Its significance and relevance to the subject are not at all clear.

It would be useful if the user is warned to wait for consensus before reinserting this content. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't immediately tell whether these are reverts because the Previous version reverted to field was left blank. El_C 02:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry the Twinkle ARV form that generated this report doesn't seem to have that field. I have added it now. It is basically the last version of Diff 4, after which 3 reinstatements were performed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I keep hearing that. It does not help the reviewing admin to have that field missing, however. Anyway, you need four reverts to happen in 24 hours in order to violate 3RR — two of your diffs are from May 26 and May 28, respectively. El_C 02:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

. You may wish to try NPOVN or RSN (whichever is more applicable). El_C 02:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby reported by User:Rafaelosornio (Result: 2 weeks)
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 is repeatedly trying to put all the Sergio Luzzatto book in the article. The article should be called "What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio". Padre Pio article is an article not a book. He is writing a long article putting all the content of Sergio Luzzatto book. I think he is abusing from copyright. Sergio Luzzatto book is copyrighted book and he is making an article about what Sergio Luzzatto thought about Padre Pio. It is a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Sergio Luzzatto book. Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not put "all of Luzzattos book" into the article. It is an important source on Padre Pio, and Luzzatto as a Jewish historian is not related to the church. So Rafaelosornio obvioulsly doubts the reliablity of this source and reverts my edits and he is not operating correct with the levels of the article and confuses any reader with several edits. Why should the correct quotations of Luzzatto be a copyright problem? I told the user several times to have a discussion at the talk page. Instead he reverted my edits and destructed a lot of my work on the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have broken the WP:3RR r. Sorry for that. But Rafaelosornio did exactly the same. He even restored his version of the article after (sic!) having me here on the notice board. Mr. bobby (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have doubts about the reliablity, in fact all Sergio Luzzatto section is "According to Luzzatto" but the problem is that it covers the half part of the entire article with the Sergio Luzzatto book. You must learn to do a summary of the text.

. For violating both copyrights and 3RR. El_C 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:OmoYoruba45 reported by User:Rsfinlayson (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. El_C 17:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond12 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:
 * Single purpose account created in 2017 whose sole edits have been to blank and remove sources in National Citizens Alliance.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you review the history, semi-protection may be helpful as there has been a concerted effort to white wash the article over the last month.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:അരുൺ സ്വാമിനാഥൻ reported by User:Ifnord (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Beef Fest controversy */Delete unnecessary datas"
 * 2)  "Delete unnecessary datas"
 * 3)  "/* Beef Fest controversy */Delete unwanted mattets"
 * 4)  "Delete unwanted matters"
 * 5)  "/* Plagiarism controversy */Delete unwanted things"
 * 6)  "Defamation contents delete"
 * 7)  "Added content"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Note - user has been indefinitely blocked for being a vandalism-only account. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * by someone else. -- slakr \ talk / 22:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Hari147 reported by User:Viztor (Result: 24 hours)
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: User_talk:Hari147

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:China–United_States_trade_war

Comments: Viztor (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: The user's behavior has not changed, while I have moved on and made other edits and wait for disputed issue to be resolved, he seems to be persistent to prevent me from editing anything on the page to a point where he didn't even bother to provide any reason at all (as seen in the fifth edit). Viztor (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

. Maybe I missed something, but I count only four actual reverts in 24 hours. Still, it's clear 3RR was violated. El_C 16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:Coron Arol (Result: move protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

persistent editwarring Coron Arol (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

. I already move protected the page, and moved it back to the status quo ante. Why was there no proper move request? It's not appropriate to use unsanctioned moves as an instrument in an ongoing edit conflict. And why is there a user with very few edits (a blank user talk page) suddenly involved in a dispute that has seen so much disruption from multiple accounts lately? Sure, Ahmedo Semsurî is cautioned about 3RR, again, but I am not inclined to block at this time, especially considering the extent of the personal attacks they recently had to endure — where the user engaging in these was also not blocked, even though they were warned, twice. El_C 16:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, you should be neutral and treat all users equally. It does not matter how many edits I have. And you should not protect or favor a user. Anyone who violates 3RR should be blocked for 24 hours. I do not mean that bad but you are unsuitable as an administrator. Coron Arol (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your objection as to my suitability as an administrator has been noted. But for your information, I take everything into account. El_C 18:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Thucyd reported by User:PluniaZ (Result: 24 hours, both )
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:

I have repeatedly asked User:Thucyd to discuss the changes on the talk page, where I have posted substantial explanations for my changes, but Thucyd refuses to discuss on the Talk Page. Thucyd has not made a single comment on the Talk Page. PluniaZ (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

. It's always a bad idea to revert four times within (or around) 24 hours, for both the reported and reporting users alike. El_C 20:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * PluniaZ's BLP exemption has been accepted. Please make sure to invoke it in future reports whenever applicable. El_C 20:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SVTCobra reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, that adds confusion and lack of context. Please discuss on Talk Undid revision 899331276 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reverting to revision 899318900"
 * 3)  "Read talk page"
 * 4)  "You are bordering on edit warring. Get a consensus on Talk. Undid revision 899316028 by GergisBaki (talk)"
 * 5)  "MOS:BIOLEAD ... please see talk page before reverting/readding... people will just have to read the body of the article for details"
 * 6)  "BLP and unnecessary level of detail for lede"
 * 7)  "condense the lede to five sentences (it is a bit bold, but see discussion on talk page)"


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

There is a lot of discussion on the talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I am following instruction by admin, who determined this to be a content dispute, which negates a possible BLP exception to edit warring. w umbolo  ^^^  20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

See above. El_C 20:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * am I supposed to provide a "previous version" for every revert? w umbolo   ^^^  20:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If necessary, yes. El_C 20:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but is the same Wumbolo that posted today in an RfC that Every single "no" !voter engages in (Stalinist) WP:Original research.? O3000 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which they've been warned about. What does this have to do with this report? El_C 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, missed Neutrality's warning. Brought it up because the editor brought two consecutive complaints here and that remarkable statement all in one day. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I oppose psychologically torturing journalists and Assange could be extradited to the U.S. any time now. w umbolo   ^^^  17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is how I can comment in my defense. I have been concerned about BLP violations at Carl Benjamin for less than 48 hours. I started by commenting on the talk page with this. I further stated I didn't want to enter such an actively edited lede without consensus. With encouragement from the talk page, I changed the article lede when the article had finally seemed calm and warring wasn't active. I returned to WP to find my edits reverted by an editor not in the consensus. I him and asked to talk on the talk page with reference to BIO policy. Skipping a few minor edits GergisBaki returns to my edit. Another editor reverts him but then 107.77.221.57 moves in and makes a bunch of edits, followed by 188.247.78.55. When I return to WP I see this and what I see as garbage because it started with reverting what seemed to be consensus. A large number of edits are made to the page while I sleep, all of them in the Lead paragraph (or very close to 100%) by registered editors and anons alike, but notably including GergisBaki whom I warn of WP:3RR. There may be a few edits by others after this. I successfully requested page protection to stop the edit war and when it was granted I restored the page to "last known stable version" which of course was my own. I then got a reminder of WP:3RR in this conversation where I acknowledge that and hope I can get a BLP exemption, but I accept the risk. I have since not made edits to Carl Benjamin but stated on the talk page that I would if no compromise is reached since I found the version in violation of BLP. Closing statement: I may very well have reverted more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period, but I think the edit history will show I did so for the betterment of Wikipedia and if my 14 year clean record must be tarnished with my first block, so be it. Thank you for your time. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Defendant:


 * In what way are you invoking the BLP 3RR exemption? (And you should really be invoking it as it happens, not after the fact, for future reference.)
 * Oh, I didn't know there'd be a cross-examination. Well, for one, I wasn't keeping count of the edits. There were many anon IPs. I knew they were adding information which wasn't in the sources or body of the article to the lede. Secondly, I was dealing with GergisBaki (who I just noticed was nominated alongside me by Wumbalo, well that's something). Anyway, I know that BLP is probably the greatest liability to the Foundation besides outright copyright violations which we seem to have gotten a grip on. I have been a Wikinews Administrator for over a dozen years. We have our own version of WP:3RR, but we are more worried about copyright. People like to copy-paste text from news articles and submit them as their own (I bet you were surprised to learn that). So I was well familiar with there's always a reason (or exemption) to break a rule, and I was confident that BLP was one of those even if I didn't know the line item number. When I was told on my talk page I was approaching 3RR, I acknowledged it and this was when I looked up the specific WP:3RR for Wikipedia. So I cited them there in full confidence. I think this was right around the time I got an Admin to Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive by Dlohcierekim. Well, in the end, I was able to get all the warring parties together on the talk page. And we now have a new Lead for Carl Benjamin which doesn't violate BLP. The main trouble maker (see above my nomination, agreed to a new lede if his source could be used. And of course it said the same as all the other sources even though he bantered about things being otherwise (but that grievance is not for you to consider).
 * Regarding my original question: are you able to condense? Your response is just not concise enough. What edit violated BLP, for example, and how did it do so? El_C 00:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Condensing (and removing replicated material)... I invoke WP:BLP in the opening paragraphs: 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. My fault is not including it in the edit summaries (due to my own ignorance). --SVTCobra (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way, specifically — that's why I asked for an example (of pertinent edit/s). El_C 01:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, here is one example Diff ... I am practically begging to editor to read policy and discuss on talk page, but it was reverted only 2 minutes later with accusations of "whitewasheing". And, unfortunately, this editor has just started editing the article again right now. "We have to clarify" he says after I spent all day (and night) finding a consensus. Well, fuck me sideways I guess. Another day on a Wiki project. I am going to report him as disruptive. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but I guess you can chalk up one more revert to me, but by now we must be past 24 hours, right. Anyway, I have had unanimous consensus on the talk page (in material ways, we always have tiny improvements). Anyway, I was the only one who would use the Undo button. Maybe because I am used to being an Admin. But it really annoyed me when I was avoiding 3RR and the rest of them just stayed on the talk page and let the fool keep reverting and changing the Lead. Not the body of the article, but the lede only. And with no source. He just kept spouting in the talk page RS says so, most RS agrees. Wikipedia must follow RS. I asked him three times what is RS, he never answered, but I eventually figured he meant Reliable Sources. Then he went 12 hours or so where I was begging to name one and he wouldn't. Eventually he posted a link to a lame HuffPost story which didn't support anything he said. But most importantly, why it should be in the WP:BIOLEAD. I have told too many stories now. Hit me with ban if you must, but I think I am useful around here. So, I'm not gonna watch this page, ok. Hit me on my talk page for more questions. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikiaus98 reported by User:Mitch Ames (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Most recent examples - see below for more info)
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article (and user) talk page: Talk:Death of Elijah Doughty, User talk:Wikiaus98

Comments:

Wikiaus98 has repeatedly made edits that:
 * remove mention of the ethnicity of one or both of the main people in the article even after it was explained why it was relevant  (added to article lede )


 * asserted that Doughty stole the bike, when there is no evidence for that


 * deleting the entire lead section without explanation

despite reversions by multiple other editors.

Other editors have tried discussing the matter on Talk:Death of Elijah Doughty and User talk:Wikiaus98. Wikiaus98 responds, but gives no indication of understanding of consensus or Wikipedia guidelines. Wikiaus98 has been explicitly warned twice Mitch Ames (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for attending to this. cygnis insignis 10:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Rbtaylor1975 reported by User:Funplussmart (Result: ec one year)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Corrected Slanderous inaccuracies"
 * 2)  "Corrected Slanderous inaccuracies"
 * 3)  "Corrected slanderous inaccuracies"
 * 4)  "Corrected Slanderous inaccuracies"
 * 1)  "Corrected slanderous inaccuracies"
 * 2)  "Corrected Slanderous inaccuracies"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 17:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Darius Musteikis reported by User:Kyuko (Result: semi 10 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The sections on Adolfas Ramanauskas's possible involvement in the Holocaust, politically contentious as they may be, are well-cited and worthy of inclusion in the article. Kyuko (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Dy3o2 reported by User:Orville1974 (Result: 24 hours Unblocked/DS alert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 899919497 by PeterTheFourth (talk) adding more sources to show that this was covered and is relevant, especially given the fact the FBI was involved in making the arrest. Just to compare, April Ryan's page has it mentioned she received death threats but no actual arrest was made, she just self-reported it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 899909620 by Aquillion (talk) this was covered by conservative outlets as well as TMZ. april ryan has a death threat section when her only proof was what she claimed whereas an arrest was actually made in shapiro's case by the FBI and LAPD working together"
 * 3)  "Not every gaff or odd comment belong in this article. removing neil interview as he did many pressers regarding his book."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 899907888 by Orville1974 (talk) I'm following a principle explained to me by Grayfell"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ben Shapiro. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ben Shapiro. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Ben Shapiro. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning notice on NPR. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated WP:POINTy behavior. Editor blanke an entire section of April Ryan article in response to a disagreement with another editor on the Ben Shapiro article. Editor has been warned about making unconstructive, pointy edits to multiple articles over the past two days April Ryan, Ben Shapiro, and now NPR, yet continues to make them anyway. Dy3o2 has also been told by several editors to utilize the corresponding article talk pages, but continues to unilaterally make controversial edits to these articles. Maintaining a WP:NPV is critical to constructive edits to Wikipedia. Further discussions with Dy3o2 are at the bottom of the talk pages here: User talk:Orville1974 and here: User talk:Grayfell.  Orville1974  (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

. Straight forward 3RR violation, at the very least. El_C 18:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * this violates WP:BITE. They had apologized here for not knowing the policy, and now you block half a day later. w umbolo   ^^^  19:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was for their third revert — then they went a head and made a fourth one. They cannot plead ignorance about that. El_C 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * no they didn't. They acknowledged the warning two minutes after making the 4th revert. w umbolo   ^^^  19:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I might have misread the timeline. Unblocking with apologies. El_C 20:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and, is there a better venue to get Dy3o2 to realize that their actions are not constructive?  Please take a look at the bottom of  my talk page for the conversation I had with Dy3o2.  I believe it upholds WP:AGF and avoids WP:BITE.  This appears to have started with edits Dy3o2 made to the Barrack Obama article.  While I was trying to guide Dy3o2 toward constructive inputs, the editor proceeded to exhibit WP:POINTy behavior on these articles: NPR, April Ryan, and Ben Shapiro including blanking entire parts of an article due to a disagreement about a section of that part and arguing about the inclusion of content in one article to justify inclusion in another, even after repeated (yet, I believe gentle) warnings.  The multiple reverts violating 3RR are just another example where the editor is not editing constructively, failing to seek WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk pages.   Orville1974  (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the AP DS alert to the user's talk page. Let's see if they can shape up. El_C 20:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyde1979 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Most recent reverts:
 * 1) 16:42, 2 June 2019
 * 2) 16:43, 2 June 2019

Previous ANI discussion: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010

Notifications: Aug 2017, User_talk:Hyde1979, User_talk:Hyde1979

Some admins have found the situation slightly too complicated for AIV.

Coming off a block for edit-warring, Hyde1979 is back to the edit-warring, using misleading edit summaries once again. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahmedo Semsurî reported by User:Nathan Annick (Result: 60 hours, 24 hours, respectively)
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 started an editwar and then he is annoying me. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Blue;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px Blue;">Nathan Annick (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Previous version reverted to field was left blank, so it's not immediately discernible whether the third diff listed is a revert. What version do you claim that diff is reverting to? El_C 16:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot add new info by removing already sourced information. That's not how Wikipedia works. I did wrote on your Talkpage to use Talk:Kurmanji but you chose to not respond but got offended. Remember it takes two to edit war. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The third diff was this . He has reverted my edit here . You can check it. He has reverted my edit and the source. best regards <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Blue;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px Blue;">Nathan Annick (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 17:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Neith-Nabu reported by User:Jeni (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900124664 by Jeni (talk)Reverting vandalism.  This matter is under discussion in the Talk section.  Feel free to join the discussion, as repeatedly posting false ingformation may constitute edit warring and get you a ban."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 900115624 by Jeni (talk)Source specifically backs up the fact.  Really, this is beyond idiotic now."
 * 3)  "Reverting to the previous, long-standing, 17.5 mile route distance while discussion is ongoing.  Not accurate, but less nonsensical, and with link to MNR route map including mileage (at least to County School LC).  Also removing tag as this edit removes the worst contradicition."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 900009331 by Jeni (talk)Oh look, he calls his friends to enforce his fiction. What a surprise."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 899989446 by Redrose64 (talk)Once again, removing the fabricated nonsense"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 899915687 by Redrose64 (talk)Undoing utter nonsense being repeatedly posted by clear troll"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 899568204 by Redrose64 (talk) rv. reality, please, not Wikifiction"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * In reply, I would suggest that this editor and her colleague initiated the edit war themselves through repeatedly posting false information on Wikipedia and choosing not to engage in discussion. Neith-Nabu (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 21:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Buffs reported by User:CorbieVreccan (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:

Buffs has a longstanding pattern of tendentious editing, and edit-warring right up to the line. He has been warned for removing sources on this and related articles, and targeted attacks/incivility first by myself, three months ago, then by two other admins,, then several other users have attempted to talk to him about his behavior,,. Today is just the latest, really. He has removed the 3RR warning, placed one on my page, and will probably now lie low for 24 hours and then resume again. That is his usual pattern. For over three months now. Everyone on these articles is tired. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the 2nd diff listed a revert of? El_C 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Like all the others, it's a removal of the Lenape dictionary (the one written and maintained by the Lenape people) to substitute one written by a scouting group that uses the words written by Germans. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not following that. Please provide a link to a diff or oldid. El_C 22:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean. That diff is him removing content and putting in a new source - a source that we were in the process of discussing and ruling out at talk. That edit is part of the pattern of removing the sources that cite that it's not a Lenape word, but the edit wasn't a straight revert; it was a removal of text and an addition of a url. So, it's edit-warring but not a technical revert. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Has there been any recent behavioral issues pertaining to incivility or personal attacks? El_C 22:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they've been fairly constant, with only breaks here and there. Diffs forthcoming. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Buffs continues to talk down to experienced editor Indigenous girl, with comments like this that cast aspersions and imply she won't follow basic policy when editing..

He seemed to quiet down for a bit after the five other editors talked to him. Then he started cutting massive content from Indigenous intellectual property without consensus. I brought it up on talk and this was his response. Screaming:

He is pretty much impossible to talk to on article talk, insisting attempts to discuss article improvements are personal attacks on him:

User:Maunus weighed in and Buffs implied Maunus had no right to edit the article and must be there for nefarious reasons:,

This post on my talk today, is the way he always talks to me now, with the constant accusations and chronic misrepresentations of what I do here:. It's not as horrific as his screaming meltdowns on his talk page like he did in response to Mark and Bishonen, but it's the low-level, chronic snarking and putdowns that he throws at everyone he disagrees with on these articles. And we know that if we disagree with him on edits he will promply escalate to the all caps and bolded screaming again. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . Sorry, my evaluation is that this does not rise to the level where sanctions are warranted at this time. Certainly, I would advise the user to try to aim at conducting themselves in a manner that's more collegial. Hopefully, that's something that will resonate. El_C 23:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict. Request reading this before final closing] Please look at this that I just noticed. In this diff where he was addressing Maunus, he posted diffs and fabricated edit summaries for them, putting words in my mouth. Specifically, this diff, with the edit summary of: "Cleanup. If we're going to compress the quotes from UNDRIP, it needs to be discussed on talk, not just slashed and burned." If you read this diff on talk, he changed my edit summary to "If we're going [change anything, it needs to have my permission, not slashed and burned.]" I only just noticed this. This is serious disruption. There has been so much, it's been hard to keep up. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * They're not fabricating the edit summary — they're just being snarky with it, which granted, is not that helpful, but I'm not sure that, too, warrants sanctions. El_C 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Anything that disagrees with Corbie's personal agenda is disruption. He knows full well I've done nothing wrong. He just doesn't like it. His "proof" is nothing more than proof by accusation and I'm tiring of his persistent harassment. Buffs (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:38.64.176.234 reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900043692 by Meters (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 900043517 by Meters (talk)"
 * 3)  "arena nickname"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Scotiabank_Arena Started after 3RR opened, per my comments in "Comments" section Meters (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am summoning them. I am just the messenger. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I don't see a need for this to be at 3RR, at least yet. The user has only made the edit three times, and is now at a level 3 warning., with no edit warring notice, and there is no discussion of the edit on the talk page, A soft edit warring notice would be more appropriate. It seems like a clear case of an unsourced edit being removed until reliable sources can be found (if they exist) to verify that "The Scosh" is a nickname of the building, but I'll start the talk page thread in case others can find more evidence of this than I did. Meters (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

. You need four not three reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 07:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)