Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive391

User:SVIwaishi1982 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Economics */ readded citations that were censored"
 * 2)  "/* Economics */ This belongs up top, as it is a properly sourced from two publications with opposite political views, NOT PUFFERY, but if the censors won't let it live where it belongs, it should live here instead."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 899984911 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) properly cited from publications of opposite political viewpoints, proper explanation of ideology for a member of congress, not puffery"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 899978839 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) properly cited explanations of political ideology, the man is a politician, this belongs here."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 899978839 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) properly cited explanations of political ideology, the man is a politician, this belongs here."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ro Khanna. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Ro Khanna. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been at first, friendly invited to participate in the talk page, continued to ignore pleas from multiple editors, only reverting, claiming to be censored, ignored questions about a COI on his/her talk, and ignored further warnings both in edit summaries and detailed explanations on their talk page. They are clearly not willing to participate in any conversation and only want to shoehorn their preferred links into the article, heedless of BRD or any other process. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Carizona reported by User:Ostealthy (Result: redirect protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. Rather than block, I just protected the redirect. Feel free to try to gain consensus to change or remove it. El_C 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ericthearcher reported by User:DrKay (Result: 24 hours, OP warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4), which reverts  (addition of category after removal of category)
 * 5), which reverts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Absolute and blatant lies in the edit summaries: . DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

. You should not be violating 3RR, either, DrKay. No matter how heated things get. I won't warn you about this again — and you're only getting a warning this time because the other user's explanation are not adding up. But I seriously considered blocking you, as well. El_C 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't violated 3RR. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On closer look, you're right. I miscounted. My apologies. El_C 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Devlet Geray reported by User:A man without a country (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also on my talk page:

Comments:

. You need four reverts to violate 3RR — you only list two. El_C 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Different users reported by User:Devlet Geray (Result: Warned)
Page: Diffs of the users' reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Comments:

A piece of information has been deleted many times by different users. Seems strange. Can somebody protect this page? --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

. It's not strange — it's promotional and there seems to be consensus for it being removed. Participants should not keep restoring it. El_C 19:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bje1128 reported by User:ApLundell (Result: page protected/warned)
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)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diffs of the users reverts after commenting on this discussion :

(Of course, after I added this section header, the date/time on his comment was changed. It was originally 17:53. ) ApLundell (talk)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * He replied on my talk page here insisting that his edits are ok because he has first hand facts. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Here's the page as it stood yesterday. 

Since then a single-purpose account has shown up to change the article and aggressively defend it to match his own personal research on the subject. With edit summaries like "My sources are reliable. My evidence is firsthand, and I am accountable for the evidence"

Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to reply. I don't have a "single-purpose account" (wow), I was an inactive user who lost the keys to his old account and chose to create a new account to upload crucial photo evidence. I have also recently edited the Presidential Election of 1824 and certain antebellum House elections, but not while logged in, so I have done so marked by IP address. My name is Brian Erskine and I can be contacted at (kattigara at gmail). I am not edit warring. The Fenn quest is solved, and I have independent visual proof. I am accountable for my evidence, which is detailed here. There is no treasure in the woods. The persistent idea that there is, is tantamount to a hoax. I seek to publish the proven solution - tangible facts, rather than perpetuating years of public deception, is what Wikipedia is for.

Thank you. Bje1128 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last good revision appears to be 898403395. Is there also a quick way to scrub the spammed website? It appears to be in any edits he's made (including on other user's talk pages).  Orville1974  (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Orville1974. The website is not spam. The source material for the proof is the epilogue illustration in Fenn's book, which matches the photo. I don't have the right to publish that illustration on Wikipedia. I am not aiming to start or win an edit war and might not at this time be able to publish the facts on Wikipedia, but the log of edit comments is of value. No harm at my end, since for me, this isn't personal or a crusade, I'm just the person who happened to find the independent visual proof of solution to the quest (details of which are elsewhere). Thanks! Bje1128 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

— . That's a lot of reverting, but I chose to go with full protection as these two (Lummifilm and (Bje1128) may be too new to know how strict we get with edit warring and 3RR. Now that they've been properly warned, they (and everyone else) get a week of trying to sort it out on the article talk page. Good luck. El_C 19:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Zoomzeta reported by User:Areaseven (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Critical response */"
 * 2)  "/* Critical response */"
 * 3)  "/* Critical response */I removed a segment meant to clearly paint the film in a deceptively positive way."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

. Multiple mandatory fields left blank. And, ultimately, you need four reverts, not three, to violate 3RR. El_C 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: Warned/protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Many users just love littering Drake’s page with tabloid-grade idiocy and irrelevant inane rumors best reserved for the Daily Mail, E! News, or ESPN as if we don’t have policies or standards for BLP. Since when is “trolling” at a basketball game encyclopedic content for a Level 5 vital article? Since when is rubbing someone’s shoulder worth inclusion for someone’s biography? Last I checked, this article is about his career and important aspects of his life like family, heritage, his home, etc. Not IMDb trivia about hobbies that won’t be a story in 2 weeks. Why can’t people understand that you can write about ambassadorship as a business endeavor without turning this article into a First Take segment? (And yes, I did say “for fuck’s sake” in an edit summary, if people are “offended”, welp. I can’t help how I talk when I see stupidity happening. So, sorry that they were offended.) Trillfendi (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Reggie Miller article it talks about his feud with Spike Lee, so Drake's courtside antics are appropriate. ''Miller became a household name during the 1994 Eastern Conference Finals against the Knicks, due to a phenomenal shooting performance in Game 5 on June 1, 1994, in which he scored 39 points (25 in the fourth quarter alone) in the Pacers' 93–86 victory at Madison Square Garden. Miller made several long 3-pointers during the quarter and engaged in an animated discussion of his ongoing performance with noted Knicks fan Spike Lee, who was, as always, seated courtside. The win gave the Pacers a 3–2 series lead over the heavily favored Knicks, but they lost the next 2 games and the series.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talk • contribs)

. Clearly, there is edit warring, on both sides, but I don't see where either side violated 3RR (I am unable to tell if diff number 5 actually constitutes a revert), but I would watch out for further edit warring. Myself, I would recommend FobTown to subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle — and generally note that there should be strong consensus to include when it comes to material that may come across as trivial. Whereas, my advise to Trillfendi is to tone down the heated rhetoric, even and despite her finding this dispute obnoxious. Finally, rather than limit the dispute to the two of you, which is likely to produce undesirable results, I would recommend seeking outside input, by utilizing your dispute resolution options. Hope this helps! El_C 19:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, at least when it comes to the subject of Drake, that talk page is rarely if ever of any productive use. Full protection until this series is over is the decent solution. Take care (no pun intended). Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Though there needs to be a record of it on the article talk page, you are not required to resolve the dispute on it and may employ one the specialized noticeboards, instead. El_C 20:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

. Also protected via RfPP, granting the protection request of a third editor. In hindsight, I should have done so here on-the-spot, but am a bit slow, apparently! El_C 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1‎ reported by User:David Gerard (Result: semi 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of GS/Crypto notification:

Comments:

New anon user repeatedly adding crypto promotion to article. Notified of WP:GS/Crypto, and specifically of WP:GS/Crypto; claims "This article is not under any active sanctions so this is not in violation in GS" - ignoring that GS/Crypto is "broadly construed", so adding cryptocurrency material engages it. I would block for blatant spam were I not directly involved - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

. I'm not sure this constitutes spamming, but it is clearly not a mainstream source. I reverted and semi'd for 2 weeks. El_C 00:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor with dynamic IP addresses in range of 1.129.xxx.xxx and 1.144.xxx.xxx reported by User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (Result: semi 2 months)
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:

IP user persistently is adding unsourced, unverifiable information to the same article. The page was protected twice and the user blocked, but each time protection has expired they have returned to disrupting the page, evading their block with dynamic IPs. I left warnings on the user talk page for each IP address, but this frankly is exhausting trying to keep up each time it changes. Not only did the user refuse to respond on the article talk page, but they reverted my edit to the talk page completely: Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 04:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Somville243 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900831989 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900831989 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900831989 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"


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


 * User talk:Somville243


 * Comments:

We are getting zero reply from this editor ....zero gagement Sorry....the editor has told us they are an expert on the subject as seen here..using a self published book. Moxy 🍁 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This has nothing to do with 3RR (diffs above go back to May 23rd). This is concerning a dispute over the misrepresentation of a Dutch source to support the claim that "dutch sources reported (Mohammad-Reza Kolahi) as the person behind the IRP headquarter bombing". The discussion of whether this should be included is taking place here, and as of yet, there is no consensus to include this claim, but filer continues to add it to the article, and now reported me here even though there hasn't been a 3RR violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kazemita1 did almost as many reverts as Stefka over the two week span (first diff 23 May, last diff 4 June). The content Stefka is removing is newly introduced. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why Kazemita1 is condemning the double standard. Both are making "as many reverts as" the other while just one is blocked. -- M h hossein   talk 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Myself, I had no idea that this was happening. But I'm gonna let another admin handle this report, because I feel I've been tested enough. El_C 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The closing admin needs to know that the reported user has a history of edit warring in MEK-related pages:
 * People's Mujahedin of Iran (see how he made six reverts in less than one day, without receiving even a single warning)
 * List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran
 * Masoud Rajavi
 * Manshour Varasteh
 * Hafte Tir bombing
 * Mahnaz Samadi
 * Robab Farahi
 * Masoud Keshmiri
 * and etc.
 * Moreover, he received a warning from an and admin against "edit-warring over contentious material". -- M h hossein   talk 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One would have to question intent here. Mhhossein et al. have been reporting me repeatedly for all sorts of frivolous things since I first got involved cleaning up MEK-related pages. One would presume that it would be better to have a rational conversation on TPs about content, but instead there is constant coordinated efforts between these editors to accuse me of things I didn't know one could be accused of (such as this 3RR report which spans about two weeks and involves the filer making as many reverts as myself - this being unrelated to the reasons why the filer was blocked recently). About the warning Mhhossein is referring to, this included all parties involved in that ANI case, including Mhhossein, which noted not to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The history of those articles speak for themselves. That you label your edit warrings as "frivolous things" should be a sign for the admins (just imagine; you made 6 non-consecutive reverts in less than 24 hrs!). You were warned not edit war, but you're still doing it on multiple pages against multiple editors, even stronger than before. Btw, I strongly warn you against accusing others with things like "coordinated efforts". -- M h hossein   talk 05:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is yet another WP:BATTLEGROUND report. I'm done responding to this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * – One week on 5 June by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 26 May 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:05, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 22:08, 26 May)
 * 2) 23:10, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 11:05, 5 June)
 * 3) 02:27, 6 June 2019, 02:28, 6 June 2019 (combined makes a full revert to 23:10, 5 June 2019)
 * 4) 04:01, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 02:28, 6 June)
 * 5) 06:24, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 04:58, 6 June 2019) (added after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, see comments.

Comments:


 * I'm not involved with editing this article. I found this edit warring after the fact by seeing a request for page protection submitted by Sangdeboeuf. Also note that the net effect of Sangdeboeuf's edits today is to revert the article to an 11 May version, which itself was in relation to a spat of edit warring that required page protection. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * has been making a serious nuisance of himself on numerous gender-related articles and projects lately. I guess this is some kind of retaliation for challenging him at Talk: Masculism (multiple threads there) and other related pages. He is also mistaken about the reason for page protection. Look at the edits I reverted here – IPs and non-confirmed users giving faulty or no edit summaries for clearly disruptive edits. Suggest a speedy close to this and a WP:TROUT to the nominator. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a 5th revert to the list above, made after this filing. I believe this editor is flaunting and playing games. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RRNO: undoing clear vandalism does not count toward the total. The one playing games is you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about an IP removing text from the lead with no edit summary? You admit to not editing the article, and have done nothing to contribute to it that I can see. And yet you are apparently watching it to try and catch me "out". Either participate yourself or just drop this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like an explanation about this. Sangdeboeuf has been edit warring against several editors about several very different content edits, none of which are obvious vandalism. All this level of indefinite page protection does is endorse Sangdeboeuf's edit war and doesn't address his behavior. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was already protected by Dlohcierekim by the time I saw this, which is what the response to this report refers to. I did apply discretionary sanctions after reviewing the page history overall, but I consider the "edit war" to have been resolved with Dlohcierekim's protection. This is a contentious article, plagued by disruption, under discretionary sanctions. That's not a content dispute. There is no identifiable content dispute. We don't block editors for reverting disruption, on the basis of a "not obvious vandalism" argument, we assist them in protecting the article. Also, I would be careful about trying to get your opponents in a content dispute blocked like this. We're not oblivious to the implications of a bitter content dispute translating directly into an attempt to have your opponent blocked over a situation you're not involved in. There's little room for AGF when you start pushing the boundaries of grudging and harassment with dubious block requests. You better have a damn good case to bring something like this to us. "He's reverting disruption, which technically isn't a 3RR exemption" is not a good argument. And there's little tolerance for it in an AC/DS topic area. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at the diffs? The types of edits are varied, from inline tagging to minor wording changes, and involve multiple editors, so I think its a stretch to call it "disruption" unless you believe that there is some ideal version of the article which Sangdeboeuf is defending. I am not involved in this article in the slightest, so I resent the implication otherwise, and I haven't asked for a block, so I don't know why you're lecturing to me and casting aspersions.  This is a very clear set of diffs showing five reverts in one day, and you haven't said even a single word to Sangdeboeuf at all - no questions, no warning, no advice - nothing.  All this indefinite protection and lack of interaction with this edit warring editor does is encourage his actions and will embolden him, leading to future problems.  Do what you want, but you now are responsible for what he does in the future. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unexplained removal of content, unexplained deletion of source, obvious POV-pushing, advocacy for violence against women, more POV-pushing, tag-bombing in the lead, misogynist vandalism, personal meta-commentary, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, unsourced content, POV-pushing, vandalism, vandalism, unsourced content, the list goes on and on. The repeated removal of "North America and Europe" could potentially become a valid a dispute, as it is being considered to be sourced only by virtue of the sources all discussing the topic in the context of NA/EU society. I.e., it's not directly sourced. If someone wanted to argue it, I could totally see that being a legitimate dispute. But even that, just being repeatedly removed by drive-by SPAs, is still disruptive editing. I'm not taking any position on the article, and looking at Sangdeboeuf's reverts, I don't see him maintaining some sort of POV or controversial content. From my perspective, he's literally just reverting the disruptive riffraff that's plaguing the article. I'm not sure why you're even advocating for the disruptive edits and against Sangdeboeuf. The disruption on that article is so obvious, I can't even understand it. Sangdeboeuf's behavior, if it's protecting articles from disruption until an admin can get around to protecting it, should be emboldened. And, yes, you're not even involved in the article. You're involved with Sangdeboeuf. In a negative way. Hence my concern over this dubious report. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in this article in the slightest – maybe not, but Net was involved in content disputes with Sang at, e.g., Talk:Masculism and Template talk:Masculism sidebar. – Levivich 03:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SunCrow reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */ reword; add source"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 901104779 by Muboshgu (talk) this content was reverted by another editor who said, "these seem WP:UNDUE, given the slight coverage; they add little regarding her views or positions on these topics." i added more sources to address the first stated concern, and i respectfully disagree with the second."
 * 4)  "/* Healthcare */ re-add relevant, sourced material with additional sourcing"
 * 5)  "/* Immigration */ re-add relevant, sourced information with additional sources"
 * 1)  "/* Healthcare */ re-add relevant, sourced material with additional sourcing"
 * 2)  "/* Immigration */ re-add relevant, sourced information with additional sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

1RR violations, as well as re-adding undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27. See page history. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Response: There is no 1RR violation. Only one of my edits listed above was a revert. I re-added some other content that had previously been reverted by an editor who claimed that there was only "slight coverage" of the content. This time, however, I added more sources to hopefully alleviate the editor's concern about WP:UNDUE, and I stated as much in my edit summary. I understand that the 1RR rule applies to this article, I have respected that rule, and I will continue to do so.


 * The assertion that I re-added "undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27" is factually incorrect. The history of the article's talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&offset=&limit=500&action=history) reflects that there was no talk page discussion at all on May 27. The article's history (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&action=history) and talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez) reflect that I made some edits to the article on May 27, that those edits were reverted, that I created three RfCs on the talk page to discuss those proposed edits, that the discussion on those RFCs is ongoing, and that I have not re-added any content to the article that is under discussion at the RFCs.


 * With respect, I ask that User:Tsumikiria please consider retracting this report. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. I would like to add that User:Tsumikiria's sole effort to engage me directly on this issue consisted of posting a warning template on my talk page five (5) minutes before reporting me on this noticeboard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SunCrow). SunCrow (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , you added something, I reverted it, and rather than WP:BRD, you reinserted it, even though another editor had also reverted it previously? 1RR violation or no, it's bad form and you know better. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, as you know, WP:BRD is an optional process. However, I regret that you were offended by my revert, and I'll be more than willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. SunCrow (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the other "option" isn't edit warring, it's forming consensus without the bold part. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, as was mentioned below (and contrary to what I said above), WP:BRD is not optional, but is enforced on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page. I failed to recognize that. My apologies for failing to abide by that rule. SunCrow (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SunCrow, as you edit the article and use the talk page, you must have read the glaring "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES: Enforce BRD, 1RR restrictions" countless times. 1RR have been breached, BRD is enforced and you breached that too. Initiating three RfCs without prior discussion is not a encouraging either. You're walking yourself into a dangerous territory. Please stop this edit warring and disruptive editing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Tsumikiria, I have taken responsibility below for what I did wrong here. I would appreciate it if you would do the same and retract the inaccurate portions of what you said about my editing above. I did not re-add "undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27." I also did not initiate three RfCs without prior discussion; the prior discussion occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Content_suggesting_that_AOC_is_lying_about_her_background_+_other_faux_right-wing_scandals. SunCrow (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You did violate 1RR. If you weren't such an experienced editor, I would have already blocked you for it. But I prefer that you understand the violation so it won't be repeated. In your first set of edits you added information that had been removed by another editor on June 6. The fact that you "improved" it is immaterial. That is a revert. Then, of course, your second revert you acknowledge. If you now understand and say so here, I will close this with a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, after taking a look at WP:EW, I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR rule on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page. I did not believe I was violating it at the time, but the policy does state that a revert consists of reversing the actions of other editors "in whole or in part." Because I changed the material before re-adding it, I thought my edits were not considered reverts. I was mistaken. I also violated the enforced BRD rule on the same page, which I had seen so many times that I did not even notice it anymore. I apologize for the errors. SunCrow (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'm closing this as warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Metalhead94 reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (14 May)
 * 2)  (15 May)
 * 3)  (1 June)
 * 4)  (2 June)
 * 5)  (7 June)
 * 6)  (7 June)
 * 7)  (9 June)
 * 8)  (10 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow but persistent edit-warring against several other editors over a lame naming issue. Refused to join talkpage discussion for almost a month. Explicitly stated his intent to continue edit warring (: "I will continue to combat you"). Finally responded to talkpage today, saying that he "couldn't care less what the sources" do and that he finds "annoying" what is done "everywhere in modern English literature". Clear case of somebody being out to "right great wrongs". Also keeps carrying that same issue over into yet more articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oska and User:Jheald reported by User:Jheald (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of User:Oska's reverts:
 * 1) diff (also includes some rearrangement of retained material)
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

Diffs of User:Jheald's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

These follow similar reverts by both users earlier in the week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edit summaries on  -- neither editor has yet gone beyond 3R

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

Comments:

I would like to request page protection of the page Sabine Weyand until mediation or 3rd-party opinion can been given re the dispute on the talk page, regarding inclusion of the subject's comments on the Brexit process.

By my reckoning, both User:Oska and myself are at three reverts, but the current situation is not healthy.

Jheald (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Response: My edit [1] was made after I spent considerable time reworking this living person biography to fix a perceived WP:coatrack problem. (And it was done after discussion on the talk page and my making a proposal for compromise and inviting comment). Jheald does not appear to have considered the merits of my reworking of the article but simply reverted it in their edit [1]. My edits [2&3] were to restore the version which I felt kept the article within the BLP guidelines and were made on the instruction therein to take immediate action against breaches. However, I did not perceive my edit [3] as a 3rd reversion, otherwise I would not have made it. In all my time here (since 2004) I have backed away from edit wars. My more persistent actions this time were because I was dealing with a BLP which I felt was in breach of guidelines and not fair to the subject. I have opened an RFC on the article's talk-page to better resolve the question of a perceived coat-rack problem and on which version of the article serves the subject better.

Without meaning to sound too accusatory, I would also like to note that Jheald is the creator of this article and my experience is that they seem to not welcome any edits that differ from how they perceive the article should be (basically seeing this person very much through the prism of her role in Brexit negotiations). I have had previous experience with this perhaps proprietorial stance when I made an earlier edit that they reverted and that was in the end resolved in favour of my edit by a third opinion (but credit to Jheald for seeking that third opinion).

Thank you for your attention. Oska (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra comment: I see that Jheald has reported us both. Personally I don't think the behaviour of either of us in this matter, while being less than exemplary on both sides, merited reporting at this point and I wouldn't have been seeking administrative consideration and perhaps action (for either of us). But now we are here I would appreciate advice on how better we both, and I personally, could have resolved matters. Was my filing an RFC a good choice? I chose that course rather than posting to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with my coat-rack concerns but perhaps the latter would have been the better approach? Feedback would be appreciated so I can work more effectively in the future and not waste admin time with potential reported incidents. I believe in making as little demand on the limited resources of this noticeboard as possible. Thank you, Oska (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. Jheald and Oska have each made about five reverts since 1 June, and the series of changes hardly show any compromise. Each editor is risking a block if they revert again prior to a consensus being reached on the talk page. The charges of WP:COATRACK are hard to fathom. (The mention of Brexit in the article is hardly "irrelevant, undue or biased", given Weyand's prominence in the Brexit negotiations, and mentioning Brexit does not interfere with giving a truthful impression of her career). The argument is about the relative emphasis to be given to a series of true generally-admitted facts. So this is a fight about article wording. If the parties want me to make suggestions on the talk page, I'm willing to do so. But meanwhile, further reverts look to be pure continuation of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel Oska and I have reached an impasse, so I would welcome any external input. But User:Oska would need to be happy to accept you as well. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge the warning. I also want to respond to some of your comments.
 * Firstly, on the matter of compromise, I think you may have missed the compromise that I attempted when I proposed a summary paragraph on the talk page to replace the, in my view, excessive quoting from a speech by the article's subject (taking up half the article). When I made that proposal I also asked for suggested edits or improvements. Jheald did not join in efforts to work on a compromise and simply reverted the edit when, after making the proposal, I replaced the Brexit section with the summary paragraph.
 * Secondly, you appear to misunderstand my position on the coat-rack issue. I have absolutely no problem with Brexit being mentioned in the article. My reworked version mentioned her role in Brexit negotiations in the lead and had a prominent career subsection on her role as EU deputy chief negotiator for the Brexit process. My issue was with Jheald's preferred version of the article being almost completely dominated by her role in Brexit negotiations, especially with, to repeat, half the article being quotes from a single interview. I do not think this is a fair treatment of the subject. Also, I'm a bit puzzled over what you're referring to when you talk of "a series of true generally-admitted facts". Do you mean the quotes? Quotes aren't facts.
 * I will make further attempts at engaging Jheald in discussion on the talk page to find a compromise. I note that they made this report directly after their own last revert which has effectively locked the article at their preferred version. I hope they will make a sincere effort to engage rather than just keep blocking. Oska (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:M R G WIKI999 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Jun 9 10:46
 * 2)  Jun 10 01:14
 * 3)  Jun 10 01:38
 * 4)  Jun 10 02:15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jun 10 01:44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Jun 10 01:16

Comments:

Additionally they made less than civil comments here.

As described here however the content in question is reflecting the position of the CDC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I stand entirely by my edits; they are justified, accurate and unbiased and secular. I herein point out that it was Doc James himself who began edit warring by unnecessary reversion of quality, good faith edits to the said page... It is my contention that Doc James is reverting my edit for political/religious/ideological reasons; his CDC point above (for example) is very clearly a misdirection to stear you away from the cited source's secular and explicit instructions NOT to moralise or be judgemental. Non-judgemental or moralistic education is absolutely the methodology being put forward in the cited source, not the bizarre, barely hidden form of religiosly motivated(?) sexual moralising being erroneously presented by Doc James ... I invite all to scrutinise my edits and tell me that they are wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Wikipedia rules, gudelines or best practices. Indeed, I only ask that you apply the same scrutiny to my accuser's "undo" editing of my work... I am supremely confident that you will find his actions are unjustified, based on these standards. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. Please excuse my many spulling mistooks above, as I'm currently on an awful mobile device that has a mind of its own. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits are "wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Wikipedia rules, gudelines or best practices." -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * They continue to revert and appear to be under the impression that rather than new changing needing consensus, the article staying as it was needs consensus... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:GARY 809 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
 * 7)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Iggy the Swan (TW)"

No warning? Nice.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

There is a consensus on the subject's talk page. The anon is a known vandal who precipitated the discussion. I am simply reverting vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeated reverts without explanation of edit GARY 809 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is a reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the matter at hand, but the IP is just as guilty if we're going to be reporting people for edit warring. Amaury 17:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree in part, the anon had already reached a dozen reverts on that article by the time I was reported. Surprised that GARY 809 had not reported the anon as well. The anon has eared a 31-hour block for various edits. The issue is resolved for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved passer-by comment: Personally I'd see the phrase "Spanish club" there in the lead as useful but not essential. More style than substance. I always try and leave one or two warnings and then swiftly report to WP:AIV, and let someone there sort it out. But I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to see a known vandal edit without constraint. I'm sure you had only the integrity of the article in mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus felt it should remain. Feel free to re-open the discussion. I personally think the term is problematic for the nature of the club itself as the club is a symbol of Catalan separatism. This was dismissed in the discussion on the subject's talk page.
 * I was following the consensus even though I disagree with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good for you, Walter. Or rather good for Wikipedia consensus. For me, it's a plain fact that FC Barcelona is a Spanish club - that's the consensus over there. But then I'm not living in exile in Belgium. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . The anonymous editor's actions appear to be obvious vandalism (or at least willfully disruptive in the face of the RFC), so Walter Görlitz's reverts are not in violation of 3RR. That said, I would suggest taking Martinevans123's approach and letting the disruptive edit stand until the offending editor is blocked (with certain exceptions, of course). clpo13(talk) 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Always helpful advice, but when the anon is reported and the patrolling admin says that we should seek dispute resolution, it's somewhat difficult to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, well here's the explanation. That alone is worth a block. clpo13(talk) 19:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:CharlesShirley reported by User:MrClog (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It speculation and it needs to marked as speculation."
 * 2)  "clarify quote is from Breyer and that Breyer did not refer to Roe directly.  That is speculation."
 * 3)  "replaced "likely" with "possibly""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Not "wild speculation" */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Not "wild speculation" */ Replying to CharlesShirley (using reply-link)"
 * 3)   "/* Not "wild speculation" */"


 * Comments:

CharlesShirley removed something they considered wild speculation June 9. I reverted the edit and started a discussion on the talk page. CharlesShirley is now refusing to use the talk page to discuss and has since June 9 reinstated a version that marked the "wild speculation" (according to them) as speculation in one way or another three times within 24 hours. Despite not using the "undo" button, the edits seemingly meet the definition of revert. MrClog (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MrClog lives in a glass house and is throwing stones. He has reverted my work four times well within the last 24 hours.
 * Diffs of MrClog's reverts:

I have not refused the use the talk page. I responded to MrClog's comments. That statement is simply not true.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * revert 1 at 6/11 10:56
 * revert 2 at 6/11 14:17
 * revert 3 at 6/11 14:18
 * revert 4 at 6/11 14:21
 * Technically, those only count as two reverts, because three of the edits were consecutive. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you did reply one time, but after I replied you started an edit war instead of further discussing the issue on the talk page. And per C.Fred, I did not violate 3RR and do not intend to do so. It is in fact the exact opposite, as my edits at :18 and :21 were meant as a form of compromise by (at least partially) addressing your concerns. --MrClog (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC); editted 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * However, even though there is not a technical violation of 3RR, this situation is on the path to edit warring. I suggest both parties leave the article as-is and discuss the situation at the talk page. Otherwise, it is likely that an administrator will protect the page to enforce discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:BobRoberts14 reported by User:Meters (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I changed the wording from "college town" to saying that much of the population and economy revolve around the colleges. That is not debatable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 901316722 by Meters (talk) All you have to do is check Santa Fe's wikipedia article or look it up on Google to know it is in Gainvesville. You are trying to dispute that it is in Gainvesville? It most certainly is."
 * 3)  "In the wikipedia article List of College Towns, Gainvesville is listed, since UF has over 56K students, 27K faculty, UF health has 13K, and Santa Fe College has over 22K students. This is all well known information cited in multiple articles. There are no factual inaccuracies in stating that it is a college town when two massive colleges are in it."
 * 4)  "This is undoubtedly true, since UF is one of the largest schools in the nation (#5 public school in terms of number of students) with 50K students, and there are 27K faculty at UF and 13K at UF Health."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 901312689 by Meters (talk Look up the number of students at UF and the number of faculty, and then realize that 56,000 students and 27,000 employees, plus 13,000 at UF Health, is more than half Gainvesville's population."
 * 6)  "It is important to know that UF is where the majority of gainvesville either works at or learns at..."
 * 7)  "I added some important information that tells a lot about the city."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* June 2019 */ pt to EW"  [informal EW warning]
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gainesville, Florida. (TW)" [formal EW warning after continuation]


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Gainesville, Florida


 * Comments:

User is determined to add unsourced claims to the article lead about U of F and Santa Fe College. Started off by claiming that the majority of the town either worked at or was a student at U of F. Extensive user page discussion at User talk:BobRoberts14 After challenge and user talk page discussion conceded that it was instead "a vast minority" (whatever that is). Switched to simply claiming that the U has a major impact on economy and population, and finally that it was a college town (discussion at Talk:Gainesville, Florida). I provided a source for the final version and it appeared that we were done. I returned today to discover that the user then changed the "college town" back to the claim about the economy and population revolving around the U. There have  been other to and fro edits on this article by this user that I was not a part of and have not looked at. Meters (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The "user" is stating an obvious fact, that UF has a large impact on the economy and population. Once again, if the school has 56,000 students, 27,000 employees, and UF healthhas over 12,000, it most certainly has a large effect on the economy and population. I liked the term "college town" but PopularOutcast kept on debating that it wasn't a college town. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You do not need a source to say that UF affects the economy and the population, since that is blatantly apparent if the school has about 100,000 students and employees in total. What does need to be sourced is the number of students and employees, which are both cited later in the article. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobROberts14
 * I'm sorry,, but almost everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to a verifiable, independent reliable source. We can't just take your word for it, and all 7 billion humans on this planet can't travel to Gainesville to personally check it out to see if they agree.  The other point here is that edit warring(repeated reversions) is unacceptable even if you are correct.  Please review policy on edit warring.  If you agree to stop edit warring and continue to discuss on the article talk page to reach a consensus, nothing further needs to be done here. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I now see that this was also brought up at ANI, where dispute resolution was mentioned; that is also an option. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, Meters and I did these separately. I was just informed of Meters entry here. Since it was suggested at the ANI, I did contact an editor that I have personally met at Gainesville Wikipediathons to see if he could weigh in. That editor has not replied as of yet but maybe he could give a third opinion. The problem here is simply opinion about what "everyone knows" and verifiability. Additionally, there have been personal attacks that can be seen on the talk page linked above. The problem hasn't just been difference of opinion but an amazing abundance of vitriol for such a new editor. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will find a source that proves UF has a major impact on the population and economy, since it has over 100,000 students and employees in total. But for now, I won't revert anyone's edits unless they are incorrect, not just because I want to input my own opinion. But I will add my sentence back with a citation when I have time. Thanks for helping mediate this dispute. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14
 * I'm going to close this now as a warning; if further edit warring occurs, you may be blocked without further notice. I strongly advise you to continue discussion or use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TrailBlzr reported by User:Djsasso (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (edited logged out for this one)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Comments: This editor has reverted addition by a number of editors to the lead 6 times, 5 of which are in the last 24 hours. Attempts to have them discuss on the talk page just lead to another revert. Has been warned in the past for edit warring. See for example and here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * These additions to the lede require consensus as they are significant. They were also reverted because the two sources provided did not provide any evidence for the claim being made. There have been many who have casually made these additions before with them always being reverted back to the status quo by other editors. (NOTE: the assumption of good faith was made, as it appeared the other editor was misunderstanding the topic of the article.) That said, I'm happy to discuss further on the article's talk page. TrailBlzr (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:TrailBlzr is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The offer to discuss would be more credible if you had made any posts at all on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Notfrompedro (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor is aware as they have been blocked before for edit warring and they threatening me with a block.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

One revert a week and a half ago, and three more reverts of the same edit more recently, is not a breach of 3RR, and since the change he reverted was a new addition and hasn't been discussed on the talk page (at least in the past six months) I'd say if anything this should be closed with a TROUT and perhaps a warning to Notfrompedro. That being said, if what CT has said about Notfrompedro's source not saying what he claims it does is correct, I'd say CIR/IDHT block until Notfrompedro recognizes the problem with their editing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * CT's view of my source is not correct. I even noted in this edit summary that the source literally describes it as "metallic and sludgy" on page 43 and page 358 says "sludge-metal-punk landmark". Notfrompedro (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I noted in my last revert how you misrepresented the source, and have told you that this has all been dealt with before (as well as WP:Genre warriors trying to add "heavy metal" to the infobox). On your talk page I told you already that the source is  and properly contextualized. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the IP I reverted in the first link two weeks ago Notfrompedro? Is that why Notfrompedro lists that edit?
 * By the way, I disagree with Hijiri that Notfrompedro should be blocked (yet)—they're very new and just don't understand what's wrong with the edit. They need to learn that "|genre=" fields are not a dumping ground for every conceivable genre that someone, somewhere has applied to some part of an album—that the field describes the consensus genre for the .  In the case of My War, there are sources that call the B-side tracks "sludge metal" (or "sludge-metal-punk" or "proto-noise" or "heavy metal" or ...), and others that say it  "sludge metal" or "grunge" or whatever, but there is no consensus amongst sources that My War is a "sludge metal" . Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * – But both parties seem to be on the edge of WP:3RR so now is the time to get agreement on Talk, or open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:PluniaZ reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Final sentence softened here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion took place here and here. Consensus was supposedly reached at the BLP noticeboard here and on my talkpage here.

Comments:

This issue is not necessarily over the timing and number of reverts as opposed to the manner in which the last one took place. I tried taking this to WP:Dispute resolution, but was told that that was not the proper forum because this was a conduct dispute. There were two paragraphs in the article that PluniaZ wanted removed but which I wanted to remain. We unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement on the talk page before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one, largely off the talk page itself, while the RfC was still open. The idea was that we had an agreement. PluniaZ closed his complaint at the BLP noticeboard with the notice: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter." The administrator MelanieN added in the compromise version of the article at our mutual request, expressing satisfaction that we had arrived at a solution. I haven't pinged her here because she's given the impression that she doesn't want to get involved anymore.

The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor later weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed before our compromise. Most obviously, they quoted a piece of the article which didn't exist in the current version and had been replaced as part of the agreement as an example of what should be taken out. PluniaZ used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections and was, as I said, added by an administrator at the request of us both. To me, this is extremely questionable both because the editor who voted in the RfC based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC was still technically open. I'm looking to see if someone can make a judgment as to the validity of the "consensus" for reverting. After I informed the editor who contributed to the RfC of the agreement, they declined to "fundamentaly" change their response but agreed that the content "probably" should not have been removed. It appears to me that PluniaZ is falsely claiming that talk page consensus existed for the removal of content in order to continue reverting to get their way. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Response - The behavior identified in this report is not edit warring, so the report should be summarily dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR or any other Wikipedia policy.
 * In response to the concerns raised by Display name 99 (talk), the most important point to keep in mind is that the article has had multiple issues that we have both been trying to address. The diffs linked by Display name 99 reflect this - Diff2 isn't even the same material as the other diffs.  We and other users have been making extensive edits to the entire article to try to improve it. On some issues we reached a tentative agreement, but on others we have not. Display name 99's report reflects confusion in where we reached agreement and where we did not, so I will try to explain.
 * The BLP noticeboard discussion and the discussion on Display name 99's talk page involved a request for a temporary fix in order to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC. I specifically say this in both discussions.  I wrote, "This would be an immediate fix to comply with WP:BLP, subject to the ongoing RfC on whether to remove the paragraph in its entirey [sic]" in User_talk:Display_name_99. And I wrote, "I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all" in Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive285.  Thus, while we did reach an agreement on a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP, we never reached an agreement on the the dispute that was subject to the RfC.
 * Throughout the time that the RfC was up, both Display name 99 (talk) and I made edits to the paragraphs under dispute. At no point did we reach a final agreement on these paragraphs.  After 9 days had gone by and we received only one response to the RfC, I removed both paragraphs because there were 2 votes to 1 in favor of doing so on the Talk Page and I objected to the edits that Display name 99 (talk) was continuing to make to these paragraphs despite the 2:1 ratio against him on the Talk Page.
 * Finally, I object to Display name 99's unilateral decision to close the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened, and neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of this is blatantly untrue. If your statement that we never reached "final agreement on these paragraphs" is correct, why did you write in relation to the first paragraph: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter" in this diff? And why did you previously say that you were "fine" with changing the content in the manner that was done? You certainly never described it as merely a temporary fix. It's true that this applies only to the first of the two paragraphs, but we still discussed the second paragraph on the talk page. I proposed a compromise version, you said nothing, I added it, and then we each made some revisions to it in a manner that reflected finding a compromise. Later on you simply removed it, even though there was no consensus to do so, because the RfC respondent cited a version of the paragraph which no longer existed. Finally, if you state that neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed, how do you justify your removal of the content while it was still open? You're holding me to an entirely different standard than the one to which you hold yourself. If you can edit the content while an RfC is open, why can't I?


 * I closed the RfC because it had received only one response in over a week and a half and because the versions of the paragraphs that you originally linked to had been altered by our agreement. I do not see how it violates the RFCEND policy. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:MapReader (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Five reverts to the page within the last 24 hours:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and, both very quickly deleted by the reverting editor and the latter sadly described by her as "bully-boy crap"

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

MOSTV states: "A series's nationality (country of origin) should be referenced by reliable sources, directly if possible, but otherwise by referencing the country or collaboration within which principal creative control was exercised. If singularly defined, it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence". The editor's attention was drawn to this existing consensus but she has continued to edit-war the page regardless.

Comments:

Editor has been warned multiple times by various editors about edit warring,(etc) warnings usually quickly deleted from her talk page. Notification of this discussion was also posted to her talk page as per policy, but also swiftly deleted.


 * As an editor with a history editing the page who also noticed this little dispute between editors, it's worth remembering that no discussion was initiated on the shows talkpage which should have been a given. Instead both editors had a little back and forth between each other. Not to mention diff four is Drmargi removing obvious vandalism and five could have been anyone as they only have one edit to their name. And funnily enough this editor seemed intent on restoring what the IP had added.


 * I believe the report starter should have created a talk page discussion as they were the first to take issue with the edit and then invited Drmargi to said discussion. I don't believe there's any obligation for anyone to respond to page disputes on their personal talkpage before such a discussion was created on the shows talk page. But that's just my opinion. Esuka (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I know that this is only three recent reverts but this editor has explicitly stated that "I'm not going to stop reverting." This editor has been blocked for edit warring previously so he or she certainly knows about our policies and practices. And he or she has removed this material multiple times. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:24.115.251.72 reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop talking about commercials"
 * 2)  "Why does Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist? We don't want any commercial talk...please."
 * 3)  "Why do we need to describe songs being featured in TV commercials if Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist? That's why there is such a thing as the Peanuts Movie."
 * 4)  "Because we don't want to deal too much with songs being used in commercials. That's why."
 * 5)  "Because Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist, we don't want to deal with songs in TV commercials"
 * 6)  "Why does Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* June 2019 */"
 * 2)   "/* June 2019 */" (made by MilkGames)


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


 * Comments:

I did told the IP to discuss the removal at the IP's talk page, but the IP apparently did not read it.  I Need Support  :3 17:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a user (CodyFinke2019) removed the same content after the IP got blocked. It could be a possible block evasion, although you did account create blocked the IP.  I Need Support  :3 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hashirama56 reported by User:Bakazaka (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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:

Comments:

Not 3RR, but user appears to have single goal of adding estimated net worth numbers to celebrity articles as factual information. I noticed the user edit warring against multiple users at Rihanna to remove the word "estimate", reverted once with an explanation in the edit summary, and issued a user talk page warning, which was obviously ignored. Bakazaka (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . This has been going on for over a week against multiple editors, exacerbated by . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mark999 reported by User:Ajf773 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Extensive addition of improperly source contents on a number of airport articles, including this one. Edits have been reverted by both myself and @Charlesdrakew. Warnings posted on the users talk page but has rudely ignored warnings and continued to undo the reverts. Ajf773 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional revert since posting this notice: . Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could help find an appropriate source or tell me what constitutes one, rather than reverting and reporting me!Mark999 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Any dates must be properly referenced with a firm start/end date. Otherwise they shouldn't be added. Ajf773 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason at all to reach 5 reverts within 24 hours, The edits in question were all unsourced (the cite used is this which as can be seen is useless), There needs to be reliable sourcing which states the content you are adding and given you've been here since 2006 you should know this by now, Like I said there's no excuse to reach 5 reverts within a 24 hours especially from a veteran editor such as yourself. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sourcerery reported by User:Zero Serenity (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

As it says on the tin. User will not WP:LISTEN to long established consensus. User claims consensus is not had (when it exists), repeatedly blanks FAQ article: And finally, despite us trying to use the talk page, user will not have it. Said user is running against 3RR, but might need a pre-emptive cooldown. Was warned on user talk page twice about actions. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit 1
 * Edit 2
 * Edit 3
 * Blank 1
 * Blank 2
 * Talk page.
 * User talk
 * Comment Only users not listening are folks at Talk:Alex Jones (that includes zero). I ask for consensus but they can't show it.Sourcerery (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as for the article, I see you repeatedly reverting text while three editors disagree with you on the TP. And, I see you blanking an FAQ three times on the TP, even after replying here, with agreement from no editors. Consider the possibility that gaining consensus for your changes falls on you. I suggest a warning before this editor crosses a line. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes consensus is important, you have to have it when making FAQ and none has been shown but you were happy to abuse it, point to it when pushing POV.Sourcerery (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The FAQ has been there for three months and I think you're the first of 634 page watchers to disagree with its existence. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (EC) Your statement makes no sense. When I proposed the FAQ with a couple items, there was one in affirmation and no in declination. I put it together, it was kinda bold (Talk pages don't have the BRD rule) but seemed to be liked as it outlined the most common arguments restarted for the page. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its against consensus. We have edited to make it better, but blanking it is not making anything better. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is whataboutery, FAQ was bold edit made without obtaining consensus and is now abused to push POV. Plenty have challenged far-right (not conspiracy tho, to be fair that was part of FAQ as well) and FAQ was abused to shut down any discussion. Also note how Zero was attacking me for lying when I pointed out there was no consensus for FAQ but he is now admitting it.Sourcerery (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the complaints are from IPs that demand that Alex Jones tells the truth and everything else is fake news. We use FAQs in such articles to quickly answer such very common complaints. The change I made two months back from “right-wing” to “far-right” was suggested by Bishonen. Including me, four editors were in favor, none against. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That appears to be bold lie, Bishonen: "Zero Serenity, I think your initiative was great, but why does your point 2 ask Why is Alex Jones listed as right-wing? Because he's not, AFAIK." (there was no consensus for his political position on spectrum in first place) Let's leave it to administrators, what they have to say for lying, personal insults and abuse of FAQ. I almost forgot potential BLP violations, many sources call him just conservative, right wing and he calls himself libertarian.Sourcerery (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That partial quote suggests she is saying the exact opposite of what she said. And please stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS. (I won't call you a liar -- only that your reading was less than careful.) O3000 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, it illustrates my point. No consensus was obtained for FAQ in time of making, it was challenged numerous times right on that talk page and FAQ was abused to shut it down.Sourcerery (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don’t change your edits after a response has been made. You quoted Bish as saying: "Why is Alex Jones listed as right-wing? Because he's not, AFAIK." You ignored that she than said he was far-right, not right-wing, according to RS. So, I changed it to far-right and other editors agreed. There is no BLP issue with well sourced text. And we don’t use self-descriptors. If we did, articles about terrorists would call them “freedom fighters” or “soldiers of god”. And we know the terms are challenged often. The previous one claimed Alex Jones was a "moderate". That's why we have a FAQ. In any case, you should have made these arguments on the TP instead of edit warring. O3000 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP wasn't directed toward you, but whoever will check page. They will look into questionable use of most derogatory term when numerous others are used to same if not larger extent by sources and putting it into first sentence. Also FAQ abuse that was taking place to enforce this and questionable behavior in general (insults, lies,etc).Sourcerery (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I recall there was a suggestion of A FAQ, and no objections either to its existence or its content. Even if this was not the case, it would still not justify an edit war. Also a very bad case of I did not here that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , no 3RR violation. Sourcerery's conduct on the article and talk page might be worth a trip to ANI in the future, but Bishonen has already warned them about it, so no further action is necessary at this time. clpo13(talk) 19:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that this has been closed, but it's probably worth noting that only a day later, Sourcerery is again edit warring, this time over at Populism. I initiated a Talk Page discussion on the matter but their response suggests a propensity to tendentious editing. Clearly, there is a pattern of behaviourwith this editor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting some very tendentious behaviour at Fascism and History of the Jews in Italy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great idea, while admins are at it maybe they can look at midnightblueowls conduct at that page as well.Sourcerery (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This would now be a case for ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:6C55:4800:29E:9C58:76E4:9D27:571B reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Range blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Please note this person has also edited as (who was blocked as a sock of  and several other IPs in the last few hours. WP:AIV and WP:RFPP reports have been filed. The  article was also a target but it has now been protected. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * IP now part of a range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:33Hudsonbay33 reported by User:Concus Cretus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I gave up due to aggressive responses when user approached. Same issue was mirrored in the lead section of Economy of the Czech Republic.

Comments:

The user started by adding misinformation about the euro currency but was reverted and warned. Out of the gate, he replied that non-eurozone countries are "backward areas of EU", and resumed edit warring by removing what seems "good" economic indicators, but when reverted, he backpaddled but started to add and enforce "low" economic indicators in what seems some kind of mission to prove his biased point about certain countries. He did similar attempts to "downgrade" the wording in articles concerning Poland, Hungary and Slovakia or other countries, going as far as rounding down their average salaries by tenths of single digits or disruptively blanking out content (1 2) to remove countries in superpower or potential superpower articles. This is against Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point at least and POV edit warring at best. Concus Cretus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tradeojax6 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:No action due to self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "NPOV change as discussed on talk page."
 * 2)  "/* Steven Crowder */"
 * 3)  "/* Steven Crowder */"
 * 4)  "There is nothing to discuss regarding changes. I've provided a sourced claim and adjusted the wording for NPOV. If anything, please explain why these changes should not occur on the Talk page: sourced information and adherence to Wikipedia's own policies should not be a matter of debate."
 * 5)  "They are not scare quotes. If you look below, specifically in the section regarding the Maza vs. Crowder event, multiple sayings, such as "playful ribbing" and "hurtful" are quoted."
 * 6)  "It's a broad assumption to say only Conservatives are on the opposite end of the argument. The article's purpose is to be neutral, to showcase the events without taking a side. The language as it stands is decidedly in favor of Maza."
 * 7)  ""High-profile figures on both sides of the aisle have chimed in on the case.""
 * 8)  "Why? Quotations go in quotes. See below in the article."
 * 9)  "Allegations drew investigation. Multiple articles speak of the polarizing effect, with as many in support of Maza as in support of Crowder."
 * 1)  "Why? Quotations go in quotes. See below in the article."
 * 2)  "Allegations drew investigation. Multiple articles speak of the polarizing effect, with as many in support of Maza as in support of Crowder."
 * 1)  "Allegations drew investigation. Multiple articles speak of the polarizing effect, with as many in support of Maza as in support of Crowder."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was warned, went right back to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I engaged in a talk page discussion with you on this, and it seemed we'd reached an agreement. I was not aware you were still challenging the edit, I apologize. Tradeojax6 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was clearly no agreement or consensus on the talk page, particularly with your weakening of the clearly stated facts of the slurs. If you self-revert your edits, this can be closed with a warning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted to the pre-edit conflict state. I would like to reach a conclusion on the talk page when we can, as I do feel the article is lacking on neutrality in its current state, an issue in and of itself. Tradeojax6 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see 4 clear reverts today by, all going back to the 05:41, 12 June 2019‎ version: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. This seems to be a content dispute, and not correction of any disruption/vandalism, so pretty clear violation of 3RR on his part. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh of course Netoholic would wander in. The first revert is a BLP violation - it's an accusation of criminal behavior supported by an unreliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary gives -zero- indication that you reverted for BLP reasons. Claiming that after you've been called out for violating 3RR is just an attempt to evade consequences. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to cite BLP everywhere for it to be relevant. Note to admins viewing this: Netoholic has never edited the article in question, never participated in any talk page discussions about the article, and somehow magically decides to show up here, likely because of his pre-existing disagreements with me on other issues and other articles. Otherwise, this can be closed because the user in question self-reverted to the status quo ante as requested and we're now having a discussion on the talk page about reaching a consensus version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a pattern of behavior by Netoholic; they did the same thing (going after a user they'd had unrelated disagreements with) to User:Sangdeboeuf a week ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really no magic involved, its called a Watchlist. By making a report here (and you are a frequent flyer), you should not be surprised that your related edits should be looked at as well, especially since you have a history of edit warring and then reporting your opponents to this board.  As you said, I'm not involved in this specific page, but I, like anyone, can observe that you violated 3RR in this case. Shifting the focus is just another tactic to avoid responsibility. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, due to self-revert by User:Tradeojax6. Any review of the recent edits should keep the BLP exemption in mind. The WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions may apply to this article so the editors are urged to be careful if they intend to make further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:AliSami reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 901803542 by SharabSalam (talk) again, we need to talk, stop Vandalism Vandalism. stop reverting. read wiki policy."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 901802309 by SharabSalam   good faith, need to talk  (talk)  No consensus for this (TW)"
 * 3)  "Vandalism is prohibited Vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Houthi movement. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Houthi movement. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user is removing sourced information and adding a POV allegation in WIKIVOICE while asking to take the dispute to the talk page. His contributions also shows that they are not adhering NPOV.-- SharabSalam (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam, I am sorry but we need to talk here [] and discuss the untrusted sources. I noted that you forcing your opinion to this article, you have a history of many revisions on this page, you are preventing anyone trying to improve the quality of this article. again, we need to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliSami (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. If either of you continues to revert the article you are risking a block. Use the talk page, open an WP:RFC, or use WP:RSN to find out which sources are reliable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I recently wrote the article Wuna of Wessex as part of Wiki Women in Red Royals edit-a-thon, and Drmies continously reverted my edits, that provided sources. When I provided another source, they continued to revert. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources are unreliable. If the editor felt so strongly, they could have argued for their sources either on their own talk page, where I left a note, or to WP:RSN, where they could argue that these awful websites they're citing are reliable sources. This is the edit warring noticeboard, and we're here because the editor chose to disregard WP:RS; I won't, therefore, start listing the academic sources I have at my disposal for Boniface (none of which mention Wuna), but what we have here is an editor who can't and won't argue for the validity of their sources. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor above left a note after reverting, not before. Every source I found on Wuna of Wessex made the claim which we are in dispute over (as do the articles on her husband and children). Instead of making reversions and snarky remarks, they could have guided me toward better sources, since they have so many at their disposal. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources on Wuna are also poor. And I did guide you toward a better source: on your talk page. The Liturgical Press has editorial oversight and cites sources, the websites you cite do no. As for reversions--if you put unsourced information in an encyclopedic article, information which I consider to be wrong, I should revert, and I think you were plenty snarky yourself, and not just in your reverts. If you are serious about this, you could actually have a field day with it, though not in the Boniface article. You could note that a few German biographers made this claim, though never with strong evidence (including Bernard Kuhlmann, whose 1895 Der heilige Bonifatius, Apostel der Deutschen isn't bad, though not very academic), and so do one or two English ones, including Williamson's 1894 biography. No one claims this since the early 20th century, and of course it's not found in Willibald's vita . But Otto Fischer's 1881 biography does not, though it includes an etymology of Winfrid that mentions winna, one of the spellings for wuna; perhaps there is confusion. And if there is a "tradition", it's not a tradition that was generally accepted in Boniface studies, even if it was proposed in sources that claim they read this in one of the vitae Wynnibaldi (here and here), but this is all so tentative that it should be relegated to a heavily footnoted subsection, not claimed as more or less factual (or deriving from an established tradition) in the lead or the main biographical description in Saint Boniface. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What? A WikiWomen Wuna of Wessex war? Wow! EEng 02:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes ma'am! And that whole era/area (of Anglo-Saxon missionaries in Germany) is replete with Ws. Boniface was Winfrid, of course; there was Wilfrid, who tried it in Friesland; one Willibald was kin to Boniface, and another wrote his vita. Then there was Willibrord, the Apostle of the Frisians, where Boniface learned his trade... Drmies (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . Additionally, reporting user has not tried to engage with the significant WP:RS concerns here. Neutralitytalk 15:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:95.169.212.56 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE)"
 * 2)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE)"
 * 3)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE)"
 * 4)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE"
 * 5)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE"
 * 6)  "GET THE F*CK OUT, YOU DOG SH*T-EATING NUMBSKULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *GET THE F*CK OUT RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* (PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE IN A FIT OF RAGE)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gary Barber. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Rm vandalism"
 * 1)   "Rm vandalism"


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


 * Comments:

This relates to WP:LTA/NS, IP is also edit-warring on own talk page and on List of Orion Pictures films. Threats of violence flying left and right in edit summaries. IanDBeacon (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in mitigation I note they were civilized enough to use bowdlerizations like sh*t and f*ck, so that should count for something. EEng</b> 05:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * is correct. IanDBeacon, you're wasting your time reporting this here: report to AIV immediately, which is more appropriate and faster. And as 331dot notes, this jackass is already known and banned. I keep forgetting their little name, but it's very white and American. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm right. Didn't you get the memo? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The vulgar edit warring would be enough, but this user is site banned as well. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:49.185.4.208 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Diet work */Harriet Hall isn’t a good reference for wiki. I ate vegan since 10years and feel amazing."
 * 2)  "/* Diet work */Can’t have negative and poor reference material on Wikipedia. Vegan diets are healthy. Harriet hall is a bad source"
 * 3)  "/* Diet work */Harriet hall is anti veganism. Also mentioned that this doc has cured heart disease. Important to promote his success! MAGA"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeated edit warring after warning. Long block requested. Unable to select the edits involved using TW. Please see the pg history. Thanks:) WikiAviator (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User keeps going – Up to 6 reverts now. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jmbise reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 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: on user talk:, , many messages by myself and users and , all messages are either ignored or met with hostility

Comments:


 * 331dot (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shamshamster1234 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  6/14/2019 at 7:58
 * 2)  6/14/2019 at 8:42
 * 3)  6/14/2019 at 9:58
 * 4)  6/14/2019 at 10:11
 * 5)  6/14/2019 at 10:33

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute in edit summary and discussions on editors talk page:

Comments:

Editor was issued a warning about Edit Warring before their final revert Which the editor then went on editing, flat out denying they are doing anything wrong. VViking Talk Edits 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have very strong suspicion that this just a troll trap. The article, the rambling arguments at the AfD, the subject of the article . Clearly an almost hoax just to drag editors into wasting aeons of time. I would suggest a CSD and shut the whole thing down.  Velella  Velella Talk  19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Shamshamster1234 is warned to be civil and is advised to become familiar with our policy on WP:Reliable sources. In case of questions about the usability of a source, you can ask at WP:RSN. If Shamshamster1234 continues to ignore all advice I suggest that others just back away from the Tadgh Quill article. At present it seems likely to be deleted per the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:Qwirkle (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that although the user added a summary of Take it to the talk page or you will be reported for edit-warring., the issue was already raised on the talkpage, unanswered by him, a month and a half ago. Qwirkle (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the reported user is now discussing the matter, I will close this with warnings to both of you to not make further reversions in the article. If there is further disruption, those reverting may be blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Describing restoration of a position extensively discussed, over nearly a dozen years, as “Disruption” seems a bit off. Qwirkle (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Rndlptrs reported by User:LauritzT (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Watauga third cleanest lake in US"
 * 2)  "Links referencing watauga lake as third cleanest"
 * 3)  "3rd cleanest lake"
 * 4)  "/* History */Slandering of my name on the internet."
 * 1)  "/* History */Slandering of my name on the internet."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Promoting a business on Watauga Lake. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Watauga Lake. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Watauga Lake. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also appears to be promoting a business. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

. For grossly violating BLP with this edit. El_C 16:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Entries */It's a completely unnecessary addition and was not discussed on the talk page"
 * 2)  "/* Entries */Per WP:POINTY -- do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point"
 * 3)  "That's no excuse for using rubbish markup for a purely cosmetic effect"
 * 4)  "/* Entries */Remove unnecesssry, complex markup - the note in a simpler and more elegabt solution"
 * 1)  "That's no excuse for using rubbish markup for a purely cosmetic effect"
 * 2)  "/* Entries */Remove unnecesssry, complex markup - the note in a simpler and more elegabt solution"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "/* Mission Winnow */New section"


 * Comments:

Clear 3RR Violation. User has previous record of edit-warring blocks with original account. Tvx1 11:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick check of his edit history shows that Tvx1 has reported me half a dozen times for edit-warring, such as this one. It is quite obvious that he has an agenda and is trying to get me blocked for daring to disagree with him. I've been waiting for him to post something at ANI ever since this discussion did not go his way. As @ (sorry for the surprise tag) said in response to Tvx1 previously:
 * ''"You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment."
 * An uninvolved third party has clearly identified two separate instances of Tvx1 trying to use the ANI process to get back at an editor. Tvx1 and I have a long history of disagreeing with one another, and almost all of these disagreements are followed up with him coming to ANI trying to get me blocked for something. I can predict that he will respond to this comment accusing me of acting in bad faith and trying to talk my way out of punishment whereas he only ever wanted to see the policy upheld in a consistent manner. I can predict this because it is what he always does.
 * The ANI process calls for the editor filing the ANI to notify editors breaking 3RR before going to ANI itself. Tvx1 has done that, but look at the timestamps: the message he posted on my talk page was posted at 11:17 on 12 June 2019 and the above ANI report was posted at 11:17 on 12 June 2019. At the very most he had 59 seconds to a) post the 3RR warning, b) reasonably expect that I would see it, and c) put together and post a 3RR report showing evidence of multiple diffs. The more likely explanation is that he composed the 3RR report, posted the warning on my talk page and then posted the report here seconds later in a cynical attempt to give the appearance of having followed the procedure. To be perfectly honest, I should have submitted an ANI of my own asking an admin to look into Tvx1's obvious abuse of the ANI system. The only reason I have not is because digging through archive pages on mobile devices is a pain, but between his repeated behaviour, other editors pointing out his obvious ulterior motive, and his failure to follow the spirit of the ANI process, I have half a mind to do just that. I have lost count of the number of times Tvx1 has run to ANI trying to get me blocked after we have had a disagreement. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you wouldn't keep ending up here if you wouldn't keep violating the edit-warring policies. I'm not very involved in this issue and I have clearly stated that I don't have a strong preference either way. I have nothing to gain whatsoever, save from stopping the disruption to the article. There seems to be some desire to discuss from the editors (save Admanny who should really join the discussion now), however you have decided to continue edit-warring to the point op breaching WP:3RR again despite the discussion. And your defense is also your classic style whenever someone reports you here. You launch into a rant of ludicrous accusations (I think I have probably reported you twice in the last two or so years, both when you were still using your old account while you have reported me a for superior amount of times and while others have also called out your behavior, so your claims are far from the truth) against the user reporting you, while showing no insight into your own behavior whatsoever. And it's that lack of insight on my behavior that is my biggest concern still. By the way, we're not on the ANI here.Tvx1 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * if you want I can replace all the Tvx1 with SSSB because claiming someone has an 'agenda' against you doesn't mean you can break the 3 revert rule. As for you complaining about the timestamps with respect to Tvx1 warning you, I fail to see how this is relevant, (s)he is supposed to post this and the warning on your talk page at the same time (roughly), thats how this works, Tvx1 used Twinkle which allows it to happen at the same time. Further the placement of uw-3rr is recommended not compulsory and you were warned that you were edit warring on the talk page so thats not relevant either. SSSB (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said that it gave me a licence to disregard policies&mdash;only that Tvx1 has a long and documented history of abusing the ANI process that I think any admin looking into this should be made aware of. He clearly has a vested interest in seeing me blocked because then he can go about making changes to articles without having to worry about someone voicing opposition to his actions. If this behaviour of his had only happened once or twice, maybe he'd be credible, but I stopped counting after the fourth time he tried it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very strange considering that I haven’t even filed four ANI reports against you in total. I’m also puzzled why you keep discussing ANI process here even though we’re not at ANI at all.Tvx1 15:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because WP:ANI/3RR is the shortcut I followed to get here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged. This is one of the dumbest edit wars I've ever seen - the diff which brought over the line only removed white space - but it's definitely a violation of 3RR. Recommend something light, probably a 24-hour block, to both cool down the reverts and to emphasise the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss things once WP:BOLD goes out the window. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've taken the time to scroll through what was happening. All I tried to do was maintain consistency across the F1 pages, as seen in and, among others. I can see how you want the page to look less ugly and all, but if Ferrari is going to enter multiple races in the European rounds under standard "Scuderia Ferrari" it *should* be noted in plain text, not just in a note. Mclarenfan17 has repeatedly reverted my edits, but since there has been much opposition, I've decided to try the edit again in the future where Ferrari has entered enough races under "Scuderia Ferrari" for it to be considerably significant. Admanny (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which could have been avoided if you bothered to take part in the talk page discussion. You were pinged there multiple times. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference between someone who got a little carried away and accidentally crossed a line (which is what happened here) and someone who has repeatedly and blatantly ignored Wikipedia rules and thumbed his nose at everyone involved (which is how Tvx1 is trying to present me). I have not had a block in two years, which is at odds with how Tvx1 has misrepresented me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, I think Tvx1 has some explaining to do. First of all, he claims he is only acting in the interests of the article, but he only refers one person&mdash;me&mdash;to 3RR despite the way Admanny clearly broke 3RR himself with the following edits:

Secondly, in one of these edits Admanny demanded that changes be made to another article before they be applied to the article in question. I thus had reason to believe that he was being deliberately disruptive, and so reverting such edits is not considered edit warring as per WP:EDITWAR.

Finally, Tvx1 himself participated in the edit war. His edit clearly meets the definition of "a series of back-and-forth edits" defined by WP:EDITWAR.

So he only prosecutes one editor at 3RR, misrepresents some of the edits in question when there was reason to believe they were deliberately disruptive, and participated in the edit war himself. If I was indeed "launch[ing] into a rant of ludicrous accusations [...] against the user reporting [me]", would he care to explain why he didn't bother to report one user for edit-warring when there was a clear case against another? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not report because they did NOT break WP:3RR. Please count their edits more carefully. Considering all your blocks you know full well how this rule works. Moreover their last edit appeared to be a genuine attempt at a compromise, whereas you just kept blanket reverting any change to that cell to the point of breaking WP:3RR. I do agree that they need to take part in the talk page discussion. I'm baffled though on how you can present my one edit as "as a series of back-and-forth edits". I made a revert, but did not edit-war. I did not revert again after my edit and focus on the talk page. I think you should stop focussing on the other editors now and try to show some insight on your own edits which broke WP:3RR (again). That remains the biggest problem. Whenever this happens you are utterly unable/unwilling to admit to have done anything wrong. And a few months later it happens agains. While you avoided being blocked for some time now, your edits in that period were not all perfectly fine. Certainly, when you stop using your original account and started editing as an IP and later this new account you went back to your old ways again. It appears that you think that with a new account you have a clean sheet regarding blocks again, and thus have some leeway now, though I do hope I'm wrong there. You did though break WP:3RR while avoiding a block at 2019 Australian Grand Prix a few months ago, so this is clearly not an isolated incident.Tvx1 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"Whenever this happens you are utterly unable/unwilling to admit to have done anything wrong."
 * Oh, I'm totally willing to admit to wrongdoing when it is appropriate. The problem is that I'm dealing with an editor who will treat any sanctions imposed on my account as a personal victory, who clearly wants to see me humbled before the community and who would be thoroughly pleased with himself for bringing it about.
 * ''"I did not report Admanny because they did NOT break WP:3RR [...] moreover their last edit appeared to be a genuine attempt at a compromise."
 * They made three reverts in 24 hours. Even if they did not break 3RR, they did not participate in the discussion on the talk page and were clearly edit-warring. That you think they genuinely attempted to make a compromise is irrelevant&mdash;they were still edit-warring. Conversely, if you feel that a "genuine attempt at compromise" is enough to excuse their actions, then you should acknowledge that, based on this edit and their unwillingness to participate in the talk page discussion, I had a legitimate reason to believe that further edits would be disruptive. As another editor pointed out, their actions were childish to say the least, so you can understand how my decision to revert one of his edits was made in good faith. Thus, at least one of my edits is not edit-warring because, as WP:EDITWAR states, "reverting vandalism is not edit warring" and "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". Given the editor's demands that other edits be made before the contested edits, I judged that to be deliberate disruption.


 * The point I am trying to make is that you are clearly judging the actions of different editors by different standards. You have not cited a single policy that would excuse or explain Admanny's behaviour, and so by your own logic and insistence that the policies be upheld, you should have referred him to ANI. His refusal to participate in talk page discussions and insistence on communicating through edit summaries clearly indicate that he would not stop edit-warring. And yet, you did not refer him to ANI because this was never about stopping and edit war&mdash;it was about your personsl vendetta against someone you disagreed with. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course different users are judged differently. Everything depends on their history. You have a series of blocks for breaking WP:3RR and are much more experienced than Admanny who hasn't been blocked for anything at all. Sure you haven't been blocked for a considerable time, but that doesn't give you a clean slate to start braking this policy again. I genuinely considered reporting the other user, but ultimately decided against it because they did not break that clear line and there last edit genuinely seemed to be well-meant. Whereas you just kept blanket reverting content you disagreed with, while with your record you shouldn't even venture close to the 3RR line. And just like with these case when you did end up being blocked, you claim you had rightful exceptions even though you clearly don't understand them. You did not revert vandalism (Please read WP:VANDALISM, at no point Admanny willingly added incorrect or offensive content) nor did you enforce an overriding policy. But rest assured that Admanny will be reported if they display such behavior again. Sorry but you just repeatedly reverted content you disagreed with to the point of breaking a hard and fast rule and "I thought they were acting maliciously" does not actually give you the right to do that. Now please drop this ridiculous obsession that others have a personal vendetta against you, because those claims are just a joke.Tvx1 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"Sorry but you just repeatedly reverted content you disagreed with to the point of breaking a hard and fast rule and "I thought they were acting maliciously" does not actually give you the right to do that."
 * I reverted content based on the well-founded belief that Admanny would continue to disrupt the page. He insisted that edits be applied to one article before being applied to the in question and used that to justify a blanket revert. His subsequent edit with the summary "reverting to spec one" offered no evidence that he was changing his behaviour in any way. He did not participate in the talk page discussion&mdash;he has only addressed the issue once, on this page&mdash;and his contributions page shows a general lack of participation on talk pages. His user talk page is full of comments from other editors that he does not address, and the few comments that he has made show disdain for the need for reliable sources. In short, I concluded that there was no basis to believe that was not disrupting the page and that he would continue to revert edits to the 2019 article until his demand for changes to the 2011 article were met. Thus the revert was entirely justified because it was disruptive.


 * But please, if you have some evidence that demonstrates that Admanny's edits were, as you put it, a "genuine attempt at compromise", then feel free to show it. The nearest thing I can find is Admanny's explanation above, but you had already decided that he was trying to compromise nine hours before he posted it, so you could not have used that to assess his intentions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "My revert was justified because I believe he was being disruptive", is not an exception allowing you to break WP:3RR. It is that sort of misunderstanding of this policy which led to you repeatedly braking it in the past and repeatedly ending up getting blocked for it and it is obvious that aftar all of that you are still unable to understand it and why you recently broke this policy again a couple of times. That's what my biggest concern is. You're stilling not changing your approach to this policy.Tvx1 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this?Tvx1 17:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mclarenfan17 (formerly User:Prisonermonkeys is warned for edit warring. Mclarenfan17 may be blocked the next time they revert this article, unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. It appears that this editor (under his two names) has a history of disagreements on racing articles, sometimes over issues that to an outsider might appear minor, like nuances of how race results ought to be formatted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:EEng, User:WikiWinters, User:TAnthony reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: Warned of discretionary sanctions)
Page:

User s 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: To my knowledge the users have not been warned.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The page in dispute is the talk page

Comments:

These three editors are the chief combatants in a war over one of EEng's silly but usually harmless additions to the encyclopedia. I say "chief combatants" because others have been involved, potentially including myself as I modified EEng's original post, but the representative sample above is just these three. Normally if I encounter a situation like this I protect the page and direct the combatants to the talk page, but in this case the edit war is occurring on the talk page. Leaving it here for a neutral admin to assess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has violated 3RR, and in particular I've only removed the copyrighted material (that serves no talk page purpose except decoration) twice in three days, each time with clear reasoning in my edit summary. I have found EEng to be a fine editor in the past, but I can't quite understand her/his apparent obsession with keeping this Star Wars quote box on an MOS talk page. Not that EEng is the only one to restore the quote box, multiple editors have gotten involved on both sides. But in my experience, when something is challenged, the editor who added it makes a case for keeping the material, and does not simply keep restoring it with "it's funny and it's fine" as a reason.— TAnthonyTalk 16:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell nobody has technically broken 3RR, but this is an edit war that's been going on since at least Tuesday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * when something is challenged, the editor who added it makes a case for keeping the material, and does not simply keep restoring it with "it's funny and it's fine" as a reason. As an editor reverting the addition once, this is where I stand. Consensus, WP:NOT, and edit warring policy apply to the talk space (and to toss it in, WP:TPG) just as they do elsewhere. The rationale I got on EEng's talk page On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is seems to miss the spirit entirely on how we settle disputes. This is not a good hill to die on, what with the hills people seem to be taking a stand on of late. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The operative principle on the very page you're citing (TPG) is Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed principle, that anyone can remove anyone else's talk page comments because they think common catchphrases are inappropriate, or that talk pages should not be humorous, or whatever other vague objection they might have, and that they can only be reinstated after discussion/consensus (where?) seems very dangerous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is probably a reasonable position/thought on your part, but for the fact it's a strawman of my position. Regardless, it is unreasonable to edit war with multiple other editors to try to get what is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT quotation to stick, especially in a location to suggest that people who use that talk page agree with the content of the image in question. I didn't originally object to the quotation, just the fact there was apparently an edit war over it, but if you ask me now that I've taken 5 minutes to consider, I'm probably in the position that I don't want to have that be the first thing a newcomer (or oldcomer) to the talk page sees. I am neither scummy nor villainous, and I doubt you or anyone else are either, but that quotation is one of the first things a newcomer would see. Is that how you want to be reflected? Even as a joke? Without any context as to why? Not I.... --Izno (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As noted in my outdented post below, the question you raise about the effect of the quote on those visiting the page would be a most fruitful one; it was indeed my intention to have a salutary effect, though I certainly might have missed the mark. Removal for the stupid reasons actually given by the removers (enumerated in that same post below) was, well, stupid. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We certainly shouldn't police talk pages the same way we do articles, but if I added a decorative item to an unrelated talk page and someone had a good reason to object, I'd let it go. EEng seems to be trying to prove a point? Having this quote remain on the talk page is not, I admit, the end of the world. But Quotations says, in part, The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed. If this doesn't apply to talk pages, then what stops me from posting the entire text of a novel or screenplay here? We take copyrighted text so seriously that we even hide violations in edit history. I'm sorry, but "humor on talk pages is common" does not justify this one, in my opinion. What is also common is removing harmless but unrelated editor commentary on talk pages like "I Love this show! Do any of you think John Doe is not really dead?" I'm all for a little humor and levity on talk pages in place of contentious arguing, but this quote does not relate to anything actually being discussed on the page, and isn't even that funny. Quote a person and not a copyrighted work if you really need to entertain yourself.— TAnthonyTalk 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also find snarky and petulant edit summaries like this one to be inappropriate and unhelpful.— TAnthonyTalk 18:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What David Eppstein said. A discussion of the issue Inzo now raises (i.e. the first thing a newcomer (or oldcomer) to the talk page sees etc.) would be fine, and such a discussion might end with the quotation removed or, perhaps, it being annotated in some way, or an additional quotation adjoined, to enhance its function as a reminder of the weird things that often go on on that page which should be avoided.

snarky and petulant edit summaries – Nothing snarky and petulant about them at all; they straightforwardly outline the knee-jerk tagteam removals with no coherent reason given -- blinkered do-gooder tsk-tskers repeatedly removing something with a series of half-baked incoherent "reasons". First it's "vandalism", then it's copyright , then it's no reason at all , then it's "I don't like all this reverting" (to explain doing another reversion ), then some idiocy about imaginary "stylistic and grammatical errors" , and now we're back to the copyright blather combined with some We're all very important and serious here and no fun is allowed nonsense. Jesus. If you think it doesn't strike the right note, fine, say that and we can have a nice discussion about what might be better, but all this nannying and ultraseriousness is not on. Go ahead, make my day. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG I cannot believe that you are still blathering on about the usefulness of this stupid quote box. Other editors have given you plenty of valid reasons why it probably shouldn't be there, just because you don't like those reasons doesn't mean that they're nonsense. And no one is saying "no fun allowed", no need to be so dramatic.— TAnthonyTalk 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you say "we can have a nice discussion about what might be better". Is there a requirement I don't know of that talk pages should be accented with pithy quotes? If editors other than you think the copyright issue isn't a big deal, fine, I don't care that much. But I really don't understand your (seemingly desperate) need to keep a quotation on this page.— TAnthonyTalk 19:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And no, "wretched hive of scum and villainy" doesn't set the right tone on the MOS talk page, or anywhere.— TAnthonyTalk 19:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No one said there was a requirement ... that talk pages should be accented with pithy quotes, though you seem to be saying that there's a requirement that they not be. If you think there's a copyright problem here, you know nothing about copyright. I note that you didn't find it necessary to remove my use, above, of Go ahead, make my day.
 * Other editors have given you plenty of valid reasons – Sorry for being dense, but can you diff one of the valid reasons given? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You clearly think the rest of us are stupid and inferior to you, but WikiWinters, Izno, and I have given you reasons. You can be as dismissive as you want about it, but it doesn't invalidate them. Now this is a discussion and perhaps I will be the only one who thinks this is a copyright issue, but I actually do know something about copyright, despite your condescending suggestion otherwise. And like I said, we're not supposed to use copyrighted text unless it directly relates to the topic of discussion, and we're so serious about it that we often hide it in edit history after removing it. You can dismiss the rest of us if you want, but first why don't you actually give us a valid reason why it should stay, beyond "you're killing my fun".— TAnthonyTalk 19:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And as far as quoting WP:TPG, Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. We're not talking about a comment. We're talking about a joke framed at the top of a talk page.— TAnthonyTalk 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the rest of you are stupid or inferior -- not Izno and Ivanvector, at least, whom I know and respect -- though the "reasons" you've given are indeed stupid, and if you keep this up I may be forced to form an opinion about you personally as well. The fact that you still don't see that the quote is a comment certainly helps things along in that regard.
 * I asked you to diff even one of the "valid reasons" given, and you still haven't done so, though you have mentioned copyright again, so let's start with that. Now, see, as it happens intellectual property was once my business, so while you may know something about copyright, I actually know ... well, not everything, but I know what it is I know, and I know this. So, seriously, I want to hear (so to speak) you say it: you actually think that when someone says Luke, I am your father! or Go on, make my day or wretched hive of scum and villainy on a talk page, that's a copyright violation that needs to be purged?
 * Or, if indeed there really was some other "valid reason" for removal, I again invite you to diff where such was given. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Form all the opinions about me you want, but please spare me your superior knowledge of everything copyright. I cited the policy that I think makes this an issue. I'm not saying I'm any more correct then you are, but it's a valid argument (whether you and your supreme intellect think so or not). It's true, I'm sure we drop movie quotes all the time in discussion, but one could argue that they are used in context, and most of the time the comments are eventually being archived. Featuring a quote that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion except to, dare I say, malign our process in a supposedly funny way stands out as unnecessary to me. And I'm not going to waste my time giving you diffs of reasons given because you already know what they are, and you already don't think they are valid. I think I'm done with this stupidity, so feel free to carry on making WP a more pleasant place with your delightful quotes and memes.— TAnthonyTalk 21:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please spare me your superior knowledge – That attitude on your part certainly explains a lot. I'll let the great John Stuart Mill expand: "The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this ..."
 * I cited the policy – You cited someone's essay, Einstein. Try again.
 * I'm not going to waste my time giving you diffs – Translation: there are none. (I only asked for one, but I guess your time is really, really valuable.)
 * I'm done with this stupidity – A relief to us all. But thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * When I asked you about this some time ago, I posed the question asking what happens when people start replying in the same way; the situation as I recall was adding it repeatedly at another users comment. Explaining a joke is not funny, what is it when some one starts debating the right to set the tone with a signed 'amusement'? cygnis insignis 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Cygnis, but I am unable to parse what you're saying or asking. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. At the diff 875152536 I made the statement
 * "I see you restored this. Removing a contribution to a talk page was not an action I took lightly, I'm assuming you can appreciate why someone might have done that; please consider how others can use this form of 'comment' to paint user's comments with their indignation (i.e. blowback). All very cunning mind you, a post to a thread to which reply is not directly possible and insists on attention to itself. cygnis insignis 04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which I am supposing is as clear then as it was now. I think I have a point, take it or leave it. cygnis insignis 21:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand quite what you're saying, but effective and even eloquent comment and counter-comment, in the form of images, was made here . "Insists on attention to itself" is a way of saying, I guess, "Too bad I don't know how to express myself effectively by incorporating others' creative works". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had thought that was what I generally do here, and that is the purpose of the site, and my habit is to avoid "expressing myself" in articles. It is not an inability to do one or the other that prompted me to express a view, not known to me at least, I'll hope you just meant I was envious of your wit. cygnis insignis 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of the pages mentioned in this thread is an article; they are talk pages, where editors express their views. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not being deliberately obtuse, please think what the obvious consequences are going to be, like someone popping up just now when I was flagging something I thought was toxic. Good thing I am thick-skinned [sobs] cygnis insignis 00:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, again, I have no idea what you're saying. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The edit war seems to have stopped, and, apparently, nobody violated 3RR; blocks are probably unnecessary at this time. However, this was disruptive, and the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions.  I'm going to officially notify each othe editors.  Technically, I don't even have to do this to EEng because a loophole at WP:AC/DS says that he's perpetually aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area (he's been ). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Perhaps the elevated level of decorum called for by DS will remind editors not to remove others' talk page contributions, particularly after they've objected to that removal, as spelled out at WP:TPO. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You see this close an endorsement of your own actions, and an opportunity to claim a right to humorously "express yourself" protected by TPO. Is that what was appreciated? cygnis insignis 14:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha you hit the nail on the head there, Cygnis. And you'd think that certain editors would learn to be conciliatory or collaborative from time to time, especially when others object to their talk page "contributions". But then again, EEng has been blocked for edit warring so many times it's clear he's never going to actually stop.— TAnthonyTalk 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha! is right. I get the block log thing so frequently that I have a bit of a canned response for it... You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page... <div style="float:; border:px solid ; margin:1px;"> ... not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers", and "Unblocked" and "Review of EEng's indefinite block" and so on. I leave them on my user page for all to see. It's also worth noting that (with one exception) all of those who have blocked me have departed the project; you might want to think about why that is. You're going to have to try a good deal harder than that. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, it's not about you. cygnis insignis 23:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's you and ol' TAnthony that keep chit-chatting away about me. I'm just following along. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

User:PluniaZ reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: diff diff diff 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Final sentence softened here Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion took place here and here. Consensus was supposedly reached at the BLP noticeboard here and on my talkpage here. Comments:

This issue is not necessarily over the timing and number of reverts as opposed to the manner in which the last one took place. I tried taking this to WP:Dispute resolution, but was told that that was not the proper forum because this was a conduct dispute. There were two paragraphs in the article that PluniaZ wanted removed but which I wanted to remain. We unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement on the talk page before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one, largely off the talk page itself, while the RfC was still open. The idea was that we had an agreement. PluniaZ closed his complaint at the BLP noticeboard with the notice: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter." The administrator MelanieN added in the compromise version of the article at our mutual request, expressing satisfaction that we had arrived at a solution. I haven't pinged her here because she's given the impression that she doesn't want to get involved anymore. The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor later weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed before our compromise. Most obviously, they quoted a piece of the article which didn't exist in the current version and had been replaced as part of the agreement as an example of what should be taken out. PluniaZ used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections and was, as I said, added by an administrator at the request of us both. To me, this is extremely questionable both because the editor who voted in the RfC based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC was still technically open. I'm looking to see if someone can make a judgment as to the validity of the "consensus" for reverting. After I informed the editor who contributed to the RfC of the agreement, they declined to "fundamentaly" change their response but agreed that the content "probably" should not have been removed. It appears to me that PluniaZ is falsely claiming that talk page consensus existed for the removal of content in order to continue reverting to get their way. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Response - The behavior identified in this report is not edit warring, so the report should be summarily dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR or any other Wikipedia policy.


 * In response to the concerns raised by Display name 99 (talk), the most important point to keep in mind is that the article has had multiple issues that we have both been trying to address. The diffs linked by Display name 99 reflect this - Diff2 isn't even the same material as the other diffs.  We and other users have been making extensive edits to the entire article to try to improve it. On some issues we reached a tentative agreement, but on others we have not. Display name 99's report reflects confusion in where we reached agreement and where we did not, so I will try to explain.


 * The BLP noticeboard discussion and the discussion on Display name 99's talk page involved a request for a temporary fix in order to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC. I specifically say this in both discussions.  I wrote, "This would be an immediate fix to comply with WP:BLP, subject to the ongoing RfC on whether to remove the paragraph in its entirey [sic]" in User_talk:Display_name_99. And I wrote, "I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all" in Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive285.  Thus, while we did reach an agreement on a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP, we never reached an agreement on the the dispute that was subject to the RfC.


 * Throughout the time that the RfC was up, both Display name 99 (talk) and I made edits to the paragraphs under dispute. At no point did we reach a final agreement on these paragraphs.  After 9 days had gone by and we received only one response to the RfC, I removed both paragraphs because there were 2 votes to 1 in favor of doing so on the Talk Page and I objected to the edits that Display name 99 (talk) was continuing to make to these paragraphs despite the 2:1 ratio against him on the Talk Page.


 * Finally, I object to Display name 99's unilateral decision to close the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened, and neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of this is blatantly untrue. If your statement that we never reached "final agreement on these paragraphs" is correct, why did you write in relation to the first paragraph: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter" in this diff? And why did you previously say that you were "fine" with changing the content in the manner that was done? You certainly never described it as merely a temporary fix. It's true that this applies only to the first of the two paragraphs, but we still discussed the second paragraph on the talk page. I proposed a compromise version, you said nothing, I added it, and then we each made some revisions to it in a manner that reflected finding a compromise. Later on you simply removed it, even though there was no consensus to do so, because the RfC respondent cited a version of the paragraph which no longer existed. Finally, if you state that neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed, how do you justify your removal of the content while it was still open? You're holding me to an entirely different standard than the one to which you hold yourself. If you can edit the content while an RfC is open, why can't I?


 * I closed the RfC because it had received only one response in over a week and a half and because the versions of the paragraphs that you originally linked to had been altered by our agreement. I do not see how it violates the RFCEND policy. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This complaint was archived by a bot. I have restored it. I see nothing proper in a complaint being archived without an administrator making a decision. This has been open for about three days now so hopefully someone will get to it very soon. Display name 99 (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and, hello. I'm pinging you because you seem to be two of the most active administrators here. Is there any reason why my report has received no action in over 3.5 days? That's much longer than anything else here. Surely some administrator should come by and offer an opinion.     Display name 99 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Every admin is a volunteer here, who does what they can do when they can do it and if they choose to do it. Since it's been a few days I think that the issue has died down and is no longer urgent. I remind both of you to not edit war and discuss any issues you have; you can use dispute resolution if need be. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I already went to dispute resolution and was referred here because it was an issue of editor conduct. It is still a major issue and I refuse to let go of the fact that the removal of these paragraphs was illegitimate and based off of false consensus. I also find it highly damaging to the project and quite frankly personally insulting for a report to be made without any kind of opinion being issued at all. Honestly, I'm not sure what you expect me to do other than except revisions to the article which I firmly believe to be done in dishonesty and against Wikipedia guidelines. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you find some way to move on from this. We've all had disputes not go the way we might want them to.  The discussion is not going anywhere from the talk page, other editors will see it in time. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, you feel "personally insulted" because of a volunteer 's inaction? Do I have this right? El_C 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , not simply inaction, but the action of closing a review without a decision being made, as if my report is so insignificant and worthless that it should not even be dignified with any kind of resolution whatsoever. The assumption is that if someone goes to this forum, their concerns will be treated seriously and be subject to a full review. No complaint should be archived or closed without a decision being made. Take the good article nominations board for example. Volunteers can review whichever articles they want when they want, but ones that don't get reviewed stay up there. An article does not get removed from the list because it's gone a certain number of months with no reviewer. In fact, reviewers are actually asked to consider reviewing older nominations. Why should things be any different here, where the issues at hand are much more urgent and need to be resolved more quickly?


 * Yes, I am absolutely insulted that not only has my post gone days without a response, while administrators have chosen to address reports made well after my own, but that it was first automatically archived and then manually closed by an administrator without any kind of resolution. I think that most people in my position would probably be upset as well. I am convinced that there should be a rule requiring that all reports be addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The top of this page has this sentence in it: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior WILL also be scrutinized." Therefore, the assumption seems to be among the creators of this board that all reports would receive a hearing and not simply be rudely dismissed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The report is now stale, so there's nothing to be done. The edits in question are nearly ten days old. I don't know why your report wasn't acted upon sooner, but it doesn't matter. Nobody is obligated to do anything on a volunteer project. You can take that inaction as a personal affront, but it's a waste of time and energy for naught. El_C 03:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:AliSami reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: 60 hours, one week, respectively)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 902225044 by SharabSalam (talk) again, last time warning:  good faith, we need to talk  until we reach consensus for this (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 902218238 by SharabSalam (talk)   again, good faith, we need to talk, see the talk page (talk)  No consensus reached or this (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 901987838 by SharabSalam (talk)  good faith, need to talk, go to talk page (talk) No consensus for this (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I have already warned this editor. He is not doing WP:BRD. I have asked for protection to the status que version the editor doesn't want that and is only editwarring. He removed sourced information and his rationale was pure original research.-- SharabSalam (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this dispute is going to be resolved by either protecting the article in the status que so that the editor stop delaying in response and the wrong version doesn't stand for so long or (which I don't recommend) is to sanction the editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute between these two editors on Houthi movement was just here on 14 June, and was closed by me with a warning to both parties: I think that both parties should be blocked (per the warning) for continuing the war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C 17:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:143:8003:75F0:E9CD:7956:E581:CD93 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 902171972 by Beyond My Ken (talk) took out the quotes...Is that what you had an issue with? I don't see any problems with the edits...."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 902160470 by Beyond My Ken (talk) what are not improvements? several references were fixed. delete the items that you think aren't improvements but don't just revert everything."


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated reverting of another user's edit. Request a 24 hour block. WikiAviator (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

. Only two reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. El_C 17:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:14NathanAllan reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Tharoor’s article is based on the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization”, as defined by Jonah Willihnganz of Stanford University. The article does not meet academic standards."
 * 2)  "Statement made in this section was not supported by the article, or evidence within the original article. Does not substantiate popularity or distribution. The article referenced is not a reputable, journalistic source for political analysis.."
 * 3)  "Removed reference known to be disreputable. Source does not uphold journalistic standards worthy of citing in academic articles."


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


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


 * Comments:

This issue of modern usage is sensitive with right-wingers, as the history of the article shows. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa reported by User:Colin M (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  6/03
 * 2)  6/12
 * 3)  6/18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on article talk page 6/12, on user's talk page 6/18

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this talk page section (And also the user talk message linked above)

Comments:

The actual content dispute here is small beans, but still, I think Ozzie10aaaa's behaviour has been unacceptable.

On 6/03, I made a good faith effort to improve what I thought was some broken template usage on a talk page, leaving pretty detailed edit summaries explaining my intention. Ozzie reverted my changes with the edit summary "Better version, and has had no issues till now". Rather than un-reverting, I left a talk page message, outlining the problem (as I saw it) in even more detail, and asking Ozzy to clarify why they wanted to keep the templates. Their response was "see prior answer on edit (to alter talk page you would need consensus from those who contributed to it and article, thank you)". That's the only communication I've been able to elicit from them on the talk page. And yet the edit summaries of their subsequent reverts have just said "see talk page". I've repeatedly tried to engage them in discussion on the talk page (including pings), and get no response. What can you do when someone reverts your changes every time, but refuses to discuss?

The only other communication I've had from them is this template they left on my talk page today about disruptive editing. Audaciously, it includes the line If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. I have bent over backwards trying to do exactly that, and they've refused to talk.

Sorry if this is the wrong venue - I've never done this. I looked at the info on dispute resolution, but it seems like those processes require that both sides are willing to communicate. I know there's no 3RR violation here, but I'm thinking it falls under the "edit warring" umbrella. Colin M (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you advise as to whether there's a better place to resolve this issue? If I keep making the change and being reverted, is there a magic number of reverts at which it becomes an edit war? (I'm being a little facetious - but I really don't know what other options I have other than saying 'okay, fine, you WP:OWN that page'. I want to reach a resolution on this issue, even if it's a small one.) Colin M (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 thank you.....Colin M its never been clear what purpose is served in altering a talk page to an outbreak that happened some time ago??(there are several hemorrhagic fever articles which could use an individual who has interest) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A talk page edit war is still a war. I recommend that neither Ozzie10aaaa nor Colin M make further changes to the collapse boxes without getting consensus first. If the other party won't participate, open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look into opening an RfC (though I'll feel a tiny bit silly). Thanks so much for the advice/clarification, ! Colin M (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Concus Cretus reported by User:33Hudsonbay33 (Result: 24 hours, op)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: He is vandalazing. He deletes or changes an edit written by me and an other editor.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C 08:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

. OP blocked for edit warring. El_C 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:52, 13 June 2019 Undid revision 901725126 by 96.57.100.162 (talk)
 * 2) 00:25, 14 June 2019 Undid revision 901732260 by Martinevans123 (talk)
 * 3) 10:17, 14 June 2019 Undid revision 901792956 by Martinevans123 (talk) We have already discussed this. Letting weeks go by and then making you change again won't do.
 * 4) 21:28, 18 June 2019 Undid revision 902383082 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) This has long been discussed and decided. It doesn't go away by waiting some months and pretending like it is a new issue
 * 5) 00:02, 19 June 2019 Undid revision 902446371 by Martinevans123 (talk) This has already been discussed and accepting. Look at the history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Some kind of POV pusing; slow-burning edit-warring, but an edit-war none the less for that. Has continued reverting—aganst multiple editors—through both the talk page RfC and after the earlier EW-warning. In fact, as far as discussion goes, it might be worth noting that Diligens hasn't posted to the talk page for three months... —— SerialNumber  54129  10:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation here. Plus Diligens has since joined the talk page discussion. If this goes back to revert warring, ping me a message and I'll block them. Number   5  7  11:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:CodyFinke2019 et al. reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: Blocked)
User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macho_Man_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=902559104 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Sexy_Thing&diff=prev&oldid=902558828 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wooly_Bully&diff=prev&oldid=902558454 (among many, many others)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.115.251.72&diff=902555249&oldid=901699683 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CodyFinke2019&diff=902550146&oldid=902548404 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CodyFinke2019&diff=902548404&oldid=902548127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A216.6.131.152&type=revision&diff=902023750&oldid=901709421

Comments:

User and obvious IP socks continue to blanket remove all mentions of song use in commercials. They already got a vacation a week ago for this, and continue to revert multiple other users despite warnings that they need to amend their behavior. User obviously gets the message, but doesn't care, seeming to think that because two other sites on the Internet exist, Wikipedia shouldn't mention certain things. --Xanzzibar (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Main account and IPs all blocked. Number   5  7  11:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Frysimo2 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User currently up to five reverts in a 24 hour period on this article:
 * 1) 14:09, 19 June 2019
 * 2) 17:13, 19 June 2019
 * 3) 17:44, 19 June 2019
 * 4) 20:18, 19 June 2019
 * 5) 07:26, 20 June 2019

User was warned after their fourth revert and asked to join the talk page discussion. Unfortunately they continued reverting and did not join the discussion. Number  5  7  07:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Blocked 72 hours and restored stable version. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Yuri7474 reported by User:Doc James (Result: 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Jun 19th 17:48)
 * 2)  (Jun 19th 17:57)
 * 3)  (Jun 19th 18:48)
 * 4)  (Jun 19th 19:23)
 * 5) (Jun 19th 23:16)
 * 6)  (Jun 20th 11:27)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Jun 19th 19:20)  Jun 19th 19:33)

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

Comments:

We are also seeing civility issues such as "but you, like a dictator". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C 16:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:188.122.20.99 reported by User:Skywatcher68 (Result: 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP initially tried claiming that the February 2014 incident never happened; now continually removes the notion that Protasiewicz was "allegedly drunk" because there's no proof of him being drunk. The only "proof" needed for being allegedly drunk was in the alleged alcohol. IP was invited to discuss on the article's talk page and has yet to do so; prefers to edit war instead. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Dbspencr reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added a few more associated acts I remembered"
 * 2)  "Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, The following uses of this field should be avoided: For groups: the solo careers of its members."
 * 3)  "Paul McCartney was a member of the Beatles. After the Beatles broke up, he started a band named “Wings.” Often at Paul’s concerts, he will play a mix of Beatles songs and Wings songs. In fact, if you go on the Wikipedia page for Wings, in the list of associated acts, there is only one: The Beatles. So the Beatles and Wings share a member, their songs are often paired together, and Wikipedia even states that they are associated with each other in one article. Therefore, Paul McCartney and Wing..."
 * 4)  "Removed vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Beatles. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on The Beatles. (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:FlightTime. (Using Twinkle"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Beatles. (Using Twinkle"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Beatles. (Using Twinkle"


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

, ,
 * Comments:


 * How is the second diff listed a revert? What is being reverted there? El_C 14:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit warring over associated acts content, it's all in the history and on the article talk page. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, specifically, what bit of text was reverted in the 2nd diff listed. El_C 14:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's the best I can get right now, if the page history and the ongoing talk page isn't good enough, then close the report. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

. User has only reverted three times. As mentioned, the 2nd diff listed does not appear to be a revert. User has been warned about 3RR. Please feel free to relist if it does get violated. El_C 15:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:H17872 reported by User:FlyingSimurgh (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]Undid revision 902729277
 * 2) [diff]Undid revision 902689979
 * 3) [diff]Undid revision 902549768
 * 4) [diff]Undid revision 902564812

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

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

'''Comments:Have told this person several times to give a reason for the undo, have explained why the previous version is incorrect and have provided source for my contribution. Yet user still persists in editing '''

El_C 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * for sockpuppetry. I have also raised the protection level of the page to ECP given its mess of a history and protection log. Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Dispute over adding details to a list page. details appropriate to the relevant articles, but unnecessary in the list page Mediatech492 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Aight 2009 and User:Asqueladd reported by Sredina (Result: Malformed)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Diff 

Users Aight 2009 and Asqueladd are reverting explained changes without any explanation provided. So far they have both done it two times, and they will very possibly continue with such actions. Sredina (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:63.141.56.198 reported by User:Pinchme123 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:53, 21 June 2019‎ by 129.89.106.57

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:52, 12:19, 21 June 2019‎, Removed section List of concentration and internment camps
 * 2) 21:52, 13 June 2019 Undid revision 902858159 by Pinchme123 (talk)
 * 3) 21:52, 13 June 2019 Undid revision 902859904 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:54, 21 June 2019‎ Pinchme123
 * The article in question has a 1RR sanction in effect.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:10, 21 June 2019‎ Pinchme123

Comments:

This editor has used the Edit Summary space to make their case, rather than the Talk page. They have been asked to bring the discussion to the talk page via another editor on this editor's Talk page and via my own Edit Summary on my revert (mentioned in #2 above). They have not done so. Even still, their second reversion was a violation of the 1RR sanction in effect on the article. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Three edits within an hour, and then nothing for over two hours. I don't think we need to take any action on this IP right now, but that would change if there were a future revert. —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shntn 007 reported by User:107.190.33.254 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs    

New user repeatedly inserting material which breaches WP:NPOV (multiple reverts over past 60 minutes), has been warned on user talk, matter also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket; seems to be WP:SPA, answers to comments on user talk also suggest WP:NOTHERE. Previously involved in same dispute starting at the end of May (here) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you could potentially add an IP (122.179.199.101) to that list. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I had just blocked this user for a week, before I noticed this report. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume the IP is blocked too as described in Autoblock? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Edit: On further investigation, the IP geolocates to India, and the (now banned) user uses some, how to say, words of a specific kind originating from the area (as can be verified on his talk page); so they are probably one and the same. Anyway, no further action required at present so this will be the end of this for now.

107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Llammakey reported by User:Mediatech492 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 902836379 by Mediatech492 (talk) no it does not - you first"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 902833139 by Mediatech492 (talk) it is not unnecessary detail. this is something that will apply to all ships named HMS Hood"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 902829996 by Mediatech492 (talk) not a dab page, already been discussed, please do not revert what you don't understand"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Began as a question of whether Battle honours needed to be listed on a List page of ships of the same name. I have attempted to be civil but it has degraded into a tantrum of personal attacks by User talk:Llammakey on List talk page and my personal talk page. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * – So far, WP:3RR has not been violated. The editors are urged to follow the steps of WP:DR. But while you are discussing the matter, take a look in . You will find many examples of Royal Navy battle honors being attached to the *ship name* and not to a particular ship. For example, look at: HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ajax and List of ships named HMS Belfast. There is also a Canadian example: HMCS Algonquin. Be aware that WT:MILHIST is a place you can get advice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:175.103.25.37 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What the hell is wrong with you?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 902951219 by ToBeFree (talk)"
 * 3)  "Not disruptive."
 * 4)  "No discussion needed... its obvious"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 902831665 by Gorpik (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 4 warning re. Monster Bug Wars (HG) (3.4.8)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Public nudity. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black hair. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I note that my personal objection is no longer present in the restored edit, but the general behavior of this user in multiple articles indicates a preventative need for an edit warring block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Bkonrad for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shashwata Chakraborty reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Alerted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Meenakshi Jain is not right wing historian . So I remove that part ."
 * 2)  "I remove the unwanted taglines and set a new vision to the content."
 * 3)  "Meenakshi Jain is great historian .  Meenakshi Jain should not be labelled as right wing . We should appreciate her great work in field of Indian national history . She is a unbiased historian . I request the Wikipedia authority to modify the page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note"
 * 2)   "Add"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Meenakshi Jain. (Twinkle)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Result: User:Shashwata Chakraborty has been advised about 3RR and alerted to the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Please report again if you see more edits that appear partisan. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Zimm82 reported by User:Juxlos (Result: Sock indeffed)
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: (Warning given after most recent revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 3 separate users had re-reverted the page, but said user insists on adding a self-stated and a non-impartial sentence, plus a claim not backed by sources.


 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:2A0A:A541:5CDE:0:6911:5EE3:624A:7CDD (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

'Comments: OWN and Don't be a jerk attitude was noticed by one user and he is doing it again and agin with several Ip users and threatening them without merit and reasons. The same user was blocked for same attitude by admin previously pls check his history but no improvement rather he claim new rule for article inbox like no-one allowed for including original ip link etc etc. Even he wwas reverting other user Talk page edits.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2001:569:77B2:400:FD3F:B80B:82AA:EDF0 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by another editor)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I did not include this revert (which would have made the last revert above his 5th) because the user at first seemed to be acting in good faith and left two comments on talk page. The user then continued to revert an additional 4 times. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tucker Carlson calling the article subject a "fascist" sourced to a YouTube video is arguably a BLP violation; they're now at like 7 or 8RR. I've requested the article be semi-protected because there's a flood of IPs and throwaways looking to smear the subject because of his political viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Added another eight reverts by IP user made after this report. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User is now predictably declaring those who oppose them to be "left-wing biased activists." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours by User:GorillaWarfare. Article semiprotected for three days by User:JJMC89. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:36.65.84.22 reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added information"
 * 2)  "Add nationality information"
 * 1)  "Added information"
 * 2)  "Add nationality information"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been explained to not add certain parameters to infoboxes, but continuous to do so on multiple pages such as the one mentioned above and Rosé (singer) among others. by doing this they have violated 3rr on specific pages but are also ignoring the request to not add on other pages. See user talk page for request to not do so and my edit summaries. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The IP is past 3RR on Lisa (Thai singer) and their repeated changes at Tania Gunadi are unsourced. But remember that edit summaries may not be sufficient if you are going to make reports at noticeboards; it is better to express yourself on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyde1979 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:43, 30 March 2019
 * 2) 18:01, 18 May 2019‎
 * 3) 22:50, 15 June 2019

Comments:


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010 - 23 May - blocked 31 hours
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive390 - 3 June - blocked 72 hours

Once again, coming off a block for edit-warring, Hyde1979 is back to the edit-warring, using a misleading edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)