Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive392

User:Foxhound03 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: 2 weeks)
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: (first one),  (second one).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (link provided, since many editors have so far disagreed with the reported user's changes)

Comments:

The reported user has been already blocked for disrupting the same article. So far, he has engaged in edit warring against at least 3 editors with the addition of WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS unsourced content. He also has proved to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is actually failing to get the point, Administrative actions are requested since the editor does not stop his disruption while having been already warned by several editors. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Update : Already blocked at ANI. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:זור987 reported by User:Dorian Gray Wild (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Reverting Senior baron by זור987

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reverting Senior baron by זור987
 * 2) Reverting Dorian Gray Wild by זור987
 * 3) Reverting Dorian Gray Wild by זור987
 * 4) Removing a massive text by זור987

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Reverting Senior baron by זור987
 * 2) Reverting Dorian Gray Wild by זור987
 * 3) Warning זור987 in his user talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "The English Wikipedia may include content that is considered in Israel as advertising / marketing content, public relations, trivia, and fan content, as well as the use of generic names such as Xenon, for example, to describe the front lights of a vehicle. See, for example, my discussions on the Pitfall talk page where I had problems when I tried to delete a trivia from the value that has no online support for the game at the top of the Billboard parade."
 * 1) Discussing the issue in the talk page. זור987 did not participate for 12 days, but reverted Senior baron after 15 minutes on June 24, 2019.
 * 2) Reverting זור987 by another user.
 * 3) In the talk page of the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, זור987 wrote:

The replies which זור987 received in the talk page in the English Wikipedia were: "The material is cited to a reliable source, which is all Wikipedia requires. Your ignorance of video game history is not grounds to remove material. That will be treated as vandalism and dealt with accordingly." as well as: "Now please stop vandalizing the article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorian Gray Wild (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

. Mostly stale. Please refer to your dispute resolution resources. Please also sign your username. A warning about slow edit warring is also due. Note that I am in the midst of reading the Hebrew Wikipedia entry's talk page, but I'm not sure how much bearing it will have on this dispute, here on the English Wikipedia. El_C 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually it was quite informative, especially in so far as identifying some single purpose accounts. El_C 15:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning.
 * I did not sign, because other applicants in this page did not sign neither.
 * My user is not SPA. I wrote Alex Fridman from zero, and wrote also other articles.
 * El_C, please see זור987 words in his user talk page. He wrote the opposite than his former words. His former words were: "The English Wikipedia may include content that is considered in Israel as advertising / marketing content, public relations, trivia, and fan content, as well as the use of generic names such as Xenon, for example, to describe the front lights of a vehicle." Now his words were: "Lots of things that conventional in the Hebrew Wikipedia, aren't considered conventional in the English Wikipedia (Like using generic names as part of the article like xenon, writing trivia information like Pitfall! appeared #1 on the Billiboard Charts, and non important/PR awards)."
 * It seems that he has to be blocked due to his whole reply, which was mainly: "You won't have any ownership on this article anymore". In other words he told me: You should not edit this article any longer. Dgw (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, so you have to use dispute resolution. I've already suggested what you should do on the article talk page. Unless you can show misbehaviour, administrative intervention is unlikely. Letting you know that you do not own the article does not rise to that level. El_C 17:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Veritasveritas666 reported by User:Almy (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903266475 by Almy (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Ross Levinsohn (HG) (3.4.8)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Ross Levinsohn. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

. Please figure this out on the article talk page. El_C 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 902661989 by Vistadan (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 902651705 by Roselle Charles (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 902635248 by Roselle Charles (talk) It’s well known that she lives there."
 * 4)  "Discography"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * 4 reverts on the same page in less than 24 hours constitute a blatant WP:3RR violation. Contribution history also shows three reverts within 24 hours recently at another page, Sweetener World Tour. This user has been brought to this noticeboard countless times before and has proven that he won’t learn until he gets blocked.—NØ 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

. That uninterrupted set of edits only counts as one revert, actually. They could have done it in one edit, if they so chose. I also note that you have left enough mandatory fields blank to the point of almost rendering this report malformed. El_C 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation? Those are 4 reverts within 24 hours. The 3 reverts on the Sweetener World Tour article are also within a 24 hour period. I guess the next stop is ANI since the admins who moderate this page are giving this user a pass for their battleground and rule violating behaviour.—NØ 19:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits are uninterrupted so it doesn't count. El_C 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That also does not respond to the three mandatory fields being blank. El_C 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:72.143.111.18 reported by User:TitanSymphony (Result: semi one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The topic of the edit war is over whether the "disruptive edits" of User:Heinvan5, a suspected Sockpuppet of User:Soulspinr, should stay in place or get deleted. TitanSymphony (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Heinvan5 is a "possible" sockpuppet, per Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TitanSymphony (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is my first time on this account reporting a user here, so please forgive me if I make any mistakes. TitanSymphony (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not siding with Heinvan5 or anything, all I'm doing is making sure we don't edit war on Wikipedia. TitanSymphony (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

. No 3RR warning listed. Went back to the status quo ante version, for now, in part due to sock concerns. Semi for one week. Please figure this out on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hopscootchica reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked for disruptive editing)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * See UTP for many warnings.

Thread attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm not involved. Just noticed this getting out of control. Better here than ANI as per BITE. Although likely to end up elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No reverts since my warning, but there are other problems with user conduct that I'm watching.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

this user told me that I should "self delete"

I have had a close family member commit suicide recently and ii find this type of behavior disturbing and offensive

Hopscootchica (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * O3000 has not said anything of the sort.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopscootchica, please realize when someone is doing you a favor. I haven't even read this article. I saw the pileup of warnings and thought I'd take this to a noticeboard known for leniency in an attempt to preempt a block -- which is where you were heading. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

---

oh but he did, just look on this page my friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Jess_Phillips_Laughing_at_male_suicide '''would you please gander at the unbelievable ''' I find this offensive, I do not know if you know what it is like to go throuhg a suicide in the family but it is one of the worst things ever, slightly above heartbreak. And to be told to do so makes me shocked at that behavior.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Hopscootchica (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you took the term "self-delete" as committing suicide. It means delete the edit you just made and was made, again, to help you avoid difficulties here. I suggest you take a break from editing WP, particularly since you are editing controversial articles. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Self-revert" is the more usual term in Wikipedia context. In any case, it is clearly not meant as an attack or a suggestion of harm. I strongly suggest that you stop trying to escalate every interaction with another editor into an argument.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hopscootchica is not editing in good faith. They they've started trying to manufacture out-rage in the way that alt-right tolls commonly do, except Hopscootchica is hilariously inept at it. ApLundell (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for disruptive editing - they blew through three reverts, but hadn't been directly warned, However, their subsequent behavior has exhausted the benefit of the doubt. . Please don't answer tit-for-tat.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Kriliokonc reported by User:Finngall (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Theta Persei. (TW)"


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


 * 1) Discussion on User talk:Finngall
 * 2) Discussion on User talk:Lithopsian
 * Comments:

Kriliokonc claims to have named this star via a star registry service, and wishes this info to be included in the article, with a link to the registry and a reference number. As with most of these "services", this is not a reliable source, which has been explained multiple times. The addition has been reverted by no fewer than four different editors. --Finngall talk 01:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

. Already indeffed. El_C 02:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:82.219.28.103 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated violation of edit war policy. Vandalising after being blocked (see the user's talk page). Request a longer block. WikiAviator (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2001:A61:58D:6201:74F9:9848:AA84:86AB reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903370106 by 82.219.28.103 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 903369658 by 82.219.28.103 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903369658 by 82.219.28.103 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring. WikiAviator (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I merely reverted vandalism.2001:A61:58D:6201:74F9:9848:AA84:86AB (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits that were being reverted were obvious vandalism, so the reverts are exempt from the edit warring policy. Mz7 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Silmedia reported by User:The Grid (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903343925 by The Grid (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 903249179 by The Grid (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 902707376 by The Grid (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 1927 Lynching */ new section"


 * Comments:

I presented level headed discussion with wishing to engage in discussion. No attempt has been made for discussion even with a ping and a start of a discussion on the talk page. – The Grid  ( talk )  17:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:Jamez42 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Steven Crowder:
 * 2) Carlos Maza:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Netoholic broke the three reverts rule in the Steven Crowder article after the recent dispute between Carlos Maza and Crowder, arguing that WP:3RRNO applies since the content is reportedly violates WP:BLP. User also reverted content in Maza's article,, which was protected because of edit warring and vandalism. Jamez42 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Before I start, some background on this topic: Crowder is known for making video rebuttals of Vox Media content, some of which included slurs about one of the Vox presenters, Carlos Maza, who then reported it to YouTube, which determined that the videos did not themselves violate their policies. The quoted line which I've WP:BLPREMOVE'd is from another Vox Media website called The Verge. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest both from Vox (because of Crowder's rebuttals) and from the author of this specific article, who is writing in defense of his co-worker. In other words, Vox Media WP:SOURCES are not WP:INDEPENDENT enough of this topic to satisfy WP:Verifiability, and the WP:BURDEN is on those seeking inclusion to address this (simple solution would be just to find alternative sources which are truly independent). Additionally, the quoted line from the article's prose (Crowder's videos "routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube's policies against cyberbullying") is defamatory to this BLP because it is factually incorrect - YouTube has stated the videos did not violate their policies. Admins have a responsibility to enforce likely BLP removals, and should instead look at those impatient editors that are seeking to re-add this contentious material.Jamez42 in particular seems to be trying to bait some kind of action here by knowingly reverting to re-add this challenged line even while discussion is taking place on the talk page about it. For some reason, his bad report here also includes unrelated edits to the Carlos Maza article which were for completely different reasons than this BLPREMOVal. Since this report has been made, though, I'll state I have no intention to further remove this line from the article or otherwise revert - I'll ask instead that the admins enforce the removal. -- Netoholic @ 16:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 3RRNO allows for 3RR exemptions for "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Arguing that a source is not independent (when that source is otherwise generally reliable) is not a clear allowance within this exemption. A single BOLD to remove once if the material is in doubt is fine, but further removals need discussion. --M asem (t) 16:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the line is indeed libelous because it is factually incorrect. Its also not independent and potentially biased because Vox Media has a financial interest in getting Crowder's video rebuttals of Vox's content removed. -- Netoholic @ 16:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The line is about the videos, not the BLP. There are some BLP concerns but nowhere close to being obvious to take exception to 3RR over. --M asem (t) 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's kind of an odd conclusion - the videos are of Crowder's spoken commentary, and the Verge source is directly addressing that. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

. BLP invoked but probably does not apply. I simply fail to see any immediate BLP issues that rise to the level of BLPREMOVE. Reaching a consensus (or lack thereof) at BLPN is now the next step. El_C 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jsalzillo1 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903429521 by Jorm (talk) This is inline with RfC"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 903402529 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) anti immigration is already in lede. Don't change placement without consensus esp. on first sentence."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 903273251 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) this is your third undo, dont edit war. This is a real case of pot calling kettle black"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 903266935 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) rfc is about other part of lede--intro sentence is different"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clear-cut violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have created a separate discussion on the COI noticeboard about this user. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

. AP2 DS (1RR) applied. El_C 21:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Magitroopa reported by User:SchroCat (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  This one at 23:30, 25 June 2019‎
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)  (this one at 20:18, 25 June 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been involved in any reverting on the page - and reverts have been across the board on a number of points in the article. While there are some reverts of vandalism, in the large part, that isn't the case. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * 20RR(!!) within three hours
 * WP:3RRNO- Numbers 4 and 5 would mainly apply here, as many of the reverts were actually vandalism, reverting of incorrect information, as well as other issues such as MOS:OVERLINK. Many of the reverts were also prior to the page being protected, AKA, when many IPs were vandalizing the page. Magitroopa (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting overlinking and the choice of image does not fall under 3RRNO - and neither do more than half your reversions. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some more- #68 is a revert of an image someone claims to be their own work, yet is not and is up for speedy deletion (Yes, more than, "choice of image"); #69 is incorrect, especially as June 26 hasn't even happened in NY yet; #70 is not the day he died; #71 is the same reasoning as #68; #72 is the same reasoning as #70; #73-75 is information that currently remains unconfirmed/unofficial; #78 is the incorrect location; #79-83 is vandalism, opinions, incorrect information, etc. Magitroopa (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a rationale for removing non-free content as an exemption to the 3RR rule, but what exemption do you claim for the others? Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So content disputes, with a small number that come under 3RRNO. You are at 4RR alone with this ridiculous back-and-forth on where the date should go!
 * I'm off to bed and will leave it to an Admin, but at least this will allow others to edit the article without being automatically reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I get that a lot of your other reverts were intended to undo poorly sourced info on a high-traffic, recent-death page, I'm having trouble seeing how  or  could even remotely be considered vandalism or any other 3RR exception. Please review what is vandalism vs. what is not vandalism (as well as the guideline on assuming good faith) before continuing to make reverts anywhere, and I'd strongly recommend taking a break from that page for 24 hours, as any further reverts that aren't obviously exempt from 3RR will likely result in a block. -- slakr  \ talk / 23:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:182.0.178.107 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

Pure vandalism of page, being repeatedly reverted by another user. Request indef block. WikiAviator (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

. Already blocked. El_C 01:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:111.220.222.2 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid vandalism by previous contributor"
 * 2)  "Undid unconstructive vandalism by 49.199.225.74


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


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:49.199.225.74 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to more relevant, and accurately sourced information."
 * 2)  "Reverted to more relevant and sourced information.  This is not vandalism - please engage on my talk page if you disagree."
 * 3)  "Restored to previous version.  All information is accurate and sourced."
 * 4)  "Restored edits to be more relevant and accurately sourced.  Note that attempt to engage on talk pages deleted by other user."
 * 5)  "Restored to more relevant and sourced information."


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


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 01:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:82.223.108.106 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: Blocked 24hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * although please do not report here and at WP:AIV. Choose a forum. In this case, this is likely the most appropriate. I see another user made the AIV report Thanks N.J.A.  &#124;  talk  01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:50.21.176.89 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Urbanoc failed"
 * 2)  "Crboyer is motherf*cker and failed to revert this edit."
 * 3)  "Crboyer failed."
 * 4)  "This is coming back"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "Crboyer is motherf*cker and failed to revert this edit."
 * 2)  "Crboyer failed."
 * 3)  "This is coming back"
 * 4)  "/* External links */"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "This is coming back"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "This is coming back"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Use of vulgar in edit summary, an overwhelming number of reverts!!! Request indef block. WikiAviator (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

IP is a sock of the problematic, and long-blocked, who's had a long history of making unsourced, and most assuredly untrue claims before, especially about Dan Vs..Crboyer (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. We don't indef IPs. El_C 02:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:94.69.61.55 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: semi 6 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Persistent reverting, request longer block. WikiAviator (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This user seems to be violating his ban. He was blocked on a different IP (174.18.78.210) yesterday. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 03:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:41.218.217.218 reported by User:WikiAviator (Result: already blocked, pages already protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "undefined"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Freestyle Releasing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Freestyle Releasing. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He is a sockpuppet of 94.69.61.55. See investigation of 94.69.61.55. WikiAviator (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC) He is essentially the same person, block both indef.WikiAviator (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Already blocked, pages already protected. Again, we don't indef IPs. El_C 03:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Dontmwt? reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: 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:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.36.200 reported by User:Galobtter (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Retired officially. Department unit had since been closed down and now defunct. No more exist. Extincted."
 * 2)  "WP:LEDE"
 * 3)  "Retired."
 * 4)  "Got it."


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


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


 * Comments:

IP continuing to edit war on Edzard Ernst after page protection expired. See User talk:183.90.36.169 for previous warnings (and a block), and previous AN3 report at Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive386. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is continuing. I'm going to leave it now to avoid going past 3RR, but this looks like outright trolling. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reapplied semi-protection, this time for six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Georgia guy reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

So far it's just going around and around in circles, and the user is just demonstrating an unwillingness to respect consensus, namely, that there is no reliable source indicating that Jeanne Calment's true age at death is under dispute. Rockstone  talk to me!   17:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Rockstone   talk to me!   18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:195.230.46.4 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Selected list of concertos and concertante works */"
 * 2)  "/* Selected list of concertos and concertante works */"
 * 3)  "/* Selected list of concertos and concertante works */"
 * 4)  "/* Selected list of concertos and concertante works */"
 * 1)  "/* Selected list of concertos and concertante works */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clearly not willing to listen at all. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:UberVegan reported by User:Orville1974 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903481310 by Orville1974 (talk) sorry about wp:pa. did not say that it was a wp:cv; considering the numerous quotations on the single paragraph, these two sentences seem MOS:QUOTE"
 * 2)  "again, mos:quote and your quotation edit (style, not content) is not improving the project, but not worth talk discussion."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 903474431 by Orville1974 (talk) yes, direct quote, but you can't be lazy and simply make edits by placing quotation marks on copyrighted material. the previous edit was WP:OR"
 * 4)  "/* ISIS flag at UC Berkeley */ rm edits not supported by sources."
 * 1)  "/* ISIS flag at UC Berkeley */ rm edits not supported by sources."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Video of outfit change */"


 * Comments:

Editor continues to blank content from multiple editors that is validly sourced with WP:LAWYER-type excuses. Editor's fourth edit was to keep the content blanked by maintaining their revert and replying via edit summary "again, mos:quote and your quotation edit (style, not content) is not improving the project, but not worth talk discussion".  Orville1974 talk 00:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will respond tomorrow. Uber</b><b style="background:#6EEF09;color:#CF5615;">Vegan</b>&#x1f33e; 01:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. Only 3 reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. But three reverts at Michael Moore are also a problem. Please engage the respective article talk pages, instead, and stop edit warring so much. El_C 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also edit warring on Michael Moore. Diffs to follow. John from Idegon (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * Also note he has been repeatedly invited to discuss with 0 discussion ensuing. I even started the section for them. John from Idegon (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi El_C. I did open the discussion on the talk page, but the editor responded by saving a blank edit (keeping their blanking of the content I had added in place) with the edit summary of "but not worth talk discussion". The editor claims it's not about content, but regardless of how the information is inserted, they have an excuse for blanking it (didn't match source--it did, copyvio--it wasn't, overquoting . . .).  I haven't hit 3 yet (I think I may have once, if ever?), and have never hit 4, nor do I intend to.    Orville1974 talk 01:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks El_C. I'm hoping that's all it takes to get them to open up a dialogue when they disagree.  Orville1974 talk


 * Given the newness of UberVegan, warning seems sufficient for now, but I'm hoping the mop-wielders that follow this board will add both pages to their watchlists. At least on Moore, this editor seems to be pushing a POV. John from Idegon (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There are two completely separate issues here: the complaint from Orville1974 and the additional purposely misleading comments by John from Idegon (which I deal with below).

In reply to Orville1974: This was much ado about nothing and I admit that I was to blame for not being more clear in my communication with them. That said, I don’t understand where there were “three reverts” in a 24-hour period. I made only two.

Seshgremlin made this edit stating: “Some commentators suggested that students critical of the isis protest could have been edited out.” His source clearly did not support that statement and it was WP:OR and WP:POV. I reverted them 18:34, June 24, 2019‎.

Orville1974 then made this edit. More than 24 hours after my previous revert, I reverted Orville1974 on 19:26, June 25, 2019‎, not because of content, but based on MOS:QUOTE. I wrongly stated that they were “lazy” for just placing the entire statement in quotes. Considering the amount of quotations in that paragraph, it did not seem encyclopedic. They reverted me and I subsequently reverted them on 19:57, June 25, 2019‎ with the same comments and an apology for stating they were “lazy.”

However, I immediately made a non-edit comment that I obviously did not clearly communicate. My intention was to let them know that I made the revert because I thought it was right, but that if they reverted me again, I would leave it. My comment that it was not worth discussing the topic in talk was really meant that it’s not an important enough topic to me to continue to battle over. If they wanted to revert me, I won’t challenge. Further, I never saw that they wrote in talk. Had I, I would have addressed my comments there.

In reply to John from Idegon: his comments were disingenuous, at best, and purposely made out of context and to mislead. It was he who has been edit-warring on the Moore page, just one week after he was blocked for edit-warring by Scott Burley. (He was also warned about WP:OWN, yet he seems to be doing that at Moore.) Moreover, his SIX reverts of my six solid edits were all reverted by MPS1992 here, writing: "not an improvement. Undid revision 903319931 by John from Idegon".

Then, John purposely used two misleading diffs as examples of my "edit-warring" on the Moore page. In his first revert of mine (as seen above) he stated "A person's political bent is not generally included in the lede unless they are a politician." The second diff that he used was to show that I was placing the same content back into the page after he had warned me. However, I actually added that sourced content into article's body under Political views, not in the lead, as John tried to imply here. So, that was NOT an example of edit-warring. And, my edit still stands. Is there a policy against what John tried to do here? <b style="color:#181818;padding:0px;">Uber</b><b style="background:#6EEF09;color:#CF5615;">Vegan</b>&#x1f33e; 21:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is an example of edit warring if reverts are involved which are not exempt — such an exemption does not appear to be present here. El_C 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * as far as edit-warring rules on Wikipedia are concerned, your making six edits and then John from Idegon reverting them all with one edit, all counts as him making one reversion of your edits. (Like the guy in Bridge of Spies said, one one one.) Not six. As mentioned in the result of this report, you need to stop reverting edits so much. Good luck. MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, will do. What about John showing two of my edits (not reverts) as his example of my edit-warring when, in fact, they were clearly not the same type of edits and did not go against his prior warning. Is there any kind of policy against this? --<b style="color:#181818;padding:0px;">Uber</b><b style="background:#6EEF09;color:#CF5615;">Vegan</b>&#x1f33e; 22:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Original edit. Revert one, revert 2. El_C 22:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Yosakrai reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)
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:

I have also participated in this edit war, but since I became aware of this, I have stopped reverting or editing the article and started a RfC instead, waiting for consensus. However Yosakrai has continued the edit war despite having been warned and invited to discuss. The user also seems to make legal threats in this edit summary (the Computer Crimes Act has a severe chilling effect on the freedom of speech in Thailand and is often used by politicians to censor unwanted coverage). --RJFF (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

. User warned about legal threats and edit warring. El_C 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:79.75.54.171 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: 48 hours one week, semi one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "do not start edit warring, also these are mentioned in many reliable books"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 903728622 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 3)  "why removed"
 * 4)  "it surpassed the mughal bengal after the battle of plassey. There are other sources, pls add from them"
 * 5)  "sourced"
 * 6)  "/* Princely state */"
 * 1)  "sourced"
 * 2)  "/* Princely state */"
 * 1)  "sourced"
 * 2)  "/* Princely state */"
 * 1)  "/* Princely state */"
 * 1)  "/* Princely state */"
 * 1)  "/* Princely state */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kingdom of Mysore. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingdom of Mysore. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I've removed the content " Mysore overtook the Bengal Subah as " as can be seen here, since it is not explicitly mentioned in the source. But the IP edit wars and asks me to find sources see. When asked to provide source he is pointing to random blogs and says there are many sources. He is also making illogical posts here and here.

Now this user is reverting my edits in other articles see Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been the first to warn Fylindfotberserk. She then left the same warning on my page, much later than my edits on the article.--79.75.54.171 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

. You can't use the existing source for a new addition. Semi for one week, giving the IP plenty of time to compile and present sources to support their changes on the article talk page. El_C 17:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

. For the IP inexplicably following the user around in order to continue to edit war unsourced content. Wow. El_C 17:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sir. this IP is challenging me/us here. He writes "serf 48hrs. Bhapas ayenge. Now go to undone those edits darpook" in a Hindi-dialect which means "Only 48 hours. I'll be back" and he uses the term "darpok" which means "coward" in Indian languages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Block extended to one week. El_C 17:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:John M Wolfson (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (Reverting a proposed compromise)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of offer to take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard with user's consent: Diff of response:

Comments:

The root of this issue is a good-faith attempt on my end to reformat the lead of Larry Sanger's article. Any legitimate problems in the lead could and should have been dealt with individually without effectively reverting the whole thing. A talk page discussion ensued, which resulted in some combative behavior on the part of QuackGuru, even when others have differed. Particularly uncalled for in my opinion was QuackGuru's attempts to have the page fully protected and get the WMF involved. As a last resort I offered to take it to the DRN but QuackGuru dug his/her heels in. I on one hand understand that such issues are more urgent in BLPs, but I think that in this case they could have been much better solved without so many reverts and so much bite. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Citations were removed from the lede and incorrect information was removed from the lede. He is not currently an epistemologist.
 * I removed "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010" among other problems.
 * I added tags and fixed the misleading content.
 * The 'Philosophy' section was placed in chronological order.
 * See this diff. The lede alreay says "Most of his philosophical work has focused on epistemology, the theory of knowledge.[6] " He is not known for being an "American epistemologist". This does not belong in the first sentence. Please read the archives. This was discussed before. The part "best known for being" not supported by the citations in the body. He may be *best known* for being a critic of Wikipedia. The part "educational websites such as" is misleading. The other websites are not described as educational websites. The part "such as" is confusing. Given this is a live article the changes should not stay in the article. The lede says "He is the former editor-in-chief of Nupedia,[9]" The lede also says "In September 2017, it was announced that Sanger had joined Everipedia as chief information officer.[20][21]" Adding Nupedia and Everipedia to the first paragraph is duplication. The citation did not verify Everipedia in the first paragraph. Please see the entire discussion on the talk page. There is a verification problem with the edits to the lede.


 * See this edit. That was not a compromise. It was false information and similar to previous edits. Sanger is not really known as an epistemologist. See talk page. Also see this conversation and this comment. I requested full protection. Do you agree to stop adding false information on an article on a person? If you do not agree then I think it would be best for you to edit other articles such as the Jimmy Wales article. John M Wolfson has been warned of the edit warring. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:VQuakr (Result: one week, both user and IP 24 hours, semi 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903912084 by 78.144.95.235 (talk) Removing persistent vandalism. IP user unwilling to engage in civilized talk page discussion."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 903910389 by 78.144.95.235 (talk) RV. not a logged-in user. See Talk:Douma_chemical_attack"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 903899876 by 78.144.95.235 (talk) rv. Removing pertinent news source citations you disagree with is vandalism. The archive link is what matters; that is what they are for. Regarding Bellingcat, see WP:Burden. A 14 - 5 vote for unreliable is not "split"."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 903885273 by 78.144.95.235 (talk) Reverting persistent vandalism. See reference to unverifiable research. The reference to WP:RS is ironic given I already pointed to it when reverting previous vandalism. CNN/NYDN archive links functioning normally."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 903882313 by 78.144.95.235 (talk) Revert is not of a logged-in user. Please refrain from using foul language. Bellingcat is not generally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia"


 * Comments:

Page is under 1RR restriction. Nevermind, not for reverts of IP's. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC) VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: . VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I ended up reducing Cambial Yellowing's block duration to 24 hours in appreciation of the personal attacks (which I redacted) they had to endure, and tacked on an extra week to the IP in response to those, in the form of semi protection for 2 weeks (since multiple IPs were being used). El_C 00:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Alexkyoung reported by User:Moxy (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 903983002 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) neither do you; please see talk page; you are reverting other editor's contributions too; if you had spent as much time as we had, as I had on this article, then I would let it go; but please look more closely into the details and provide specific feedback on where you want the article to be approved; please just stop and try to listen for once"
 * 2)  "when I originally made the edits more than a month ago (a series of at least 20, not just all at once); others started edit-warring me; please do not revert the contributions of other users; many others have contributed to this article as well, and they helped make this article better; you always have access to previous versions, so keep the current one as is; and please discuss specific places where you want improvement"
 * 3)  "please discuss massive revert, my edits are not the only ones you are reverting, many others have contributed too, the toc also got screwed up, be specific where you want improvements"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 903350976 by Citobun (talk) stop, you're late to the party, this was resolved a long time ago, and remaining pov was in this article before the edits"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor having a problem on this article....since early May trying to implement their version ....been reverted by 5 editors since then. Moxy 🍁 06:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are not 'my edits'. Many others have edited it as well. This should be merged with the existing section.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already saw this one. This is not a violation of WP:3RR because the reverts occurred over a period of more than 24 hours. ST47 (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Already blocked...but in the future...Pls review the edit history,, and refer to the policy you linked "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior" + "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring".-- Moxy 🍁 07:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Lilkim.xl reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked )
Lil' Kim: Lilkim.xl:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Revision as of 05:28, 29 June 2019
 * 2)  - Revision as of 05:29, 29 June 2019
 * 3)  - Revision as of 05:39, 29 June 2019
 * 4)  - Revision as of 05:42, 29 June 2019
 * 5)  - Revision as of 06:05, 29 June 2019
 * 6)  - Revision as of 09:19, 29 June 2019
 * 7)  - Revision as of 16:42, 29 June 2019
 * 8)  - Revision as of 00:28, 30 June 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This new editor is reverting to a WP:BLP-violative edit about a personal-life claim, the subject's birthdate, despite the existence of multiple WP:RS sources. Please note my reversions fall under the WP:3RRBLP exemption.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit-warring editor is also now claiming WP:OWN at their user page: "I am the editor of all Lil’ Kim articles on Wikipedia ...." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * by User:Bbb23 Rmhermen (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:Ajñavidya (Result: 24)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; ; noticeboard report

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

Comments:

The user has insistently reverted text body and a source added by me to the article «Carl Benjamin». Despite being both engaged in that article's talk page about other issues, the subject of the treated edit war was never mentioned in the talk page, only in the edit page (sorry for that). The user didn't give a consistent reason, only alleging that the information given is «not in the source», which is blatantly false. I warned the user two times before making this report, but my warnings were deleted from the user talk page both times: and. This user have also been engaged in, trying to push for what I consider to be violations of WP:5P2, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LABEL. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * you look to be edit warring as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Robert K S reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 03:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC) "Tag:Rollback"
 * 2) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC) "Tag:Rollback"
 * 3) 01:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC) "Tags:Rollback", PHP7
 * 4) 01:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC) "Todd apparently did not realize, despite the two references, that "Automatic" is not part of the name of the ENIAC. This isn't wikiownership, it's one editor who knows what he's doing and another who does not."
 * 5) 21:47, 29 June 2019 rv obvious vandalism (note: this edit was after this report was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 10:49, 28 June 2019 [yesterday for edit-warring at Jeopardy!)
 * 02:13, 29 June 2019‎ (by )
 * 21:52, 28 June 2019‎ (by )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 21:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC) (user talk)
 * 03:00, 29 June 2019 (article talk)

Comments:

I only happened across this matter because Robert K S's talk page was on my watchlist after having given him an earlier warning about edit-warring at Jeopardy!. At ENIAC, an anonymous editor added the text "-Analyzer" to the name of the computer, something I've actually seen myself by people trying to rationalise the "A" in "ENIAC". It's definitely not vandalism but Robert K S used rollback to revert the edit. The IP then added "Automatic" instead of "Analyzer" and bolded the first letter of each word. Again, this is not obvious vandalism but Robert K S again used rollback to revert. At this point, Toddst1 posted to Robert K S's talk page, warning him about the inappropriate use of rollback, which Robert K S denied was the case. While the talk page discussion was happening, the IP restored his bolding and "Automatic", which Robert K S again used rollback to revert. After this Toddst1 warned Robert K S that he was at 3 reverts. Some time later, Toddst1 made his own edits to the article, reverting Robert K S as well as tagging the article, with the edit summaries "Undid revision 903954013 by Robert K S (talk) not clear Robert's way is better. Take it to the talk page. WP:OWNership appears likely" and "Added Cleanup bare URLs tag to article". Sometime later, but only a little over 6 hours after his first revert, Robert K S made this edit which reverted all 4 intermediate edits between his last, including this quite valid edit by . This was a quite careless edit because not only did it revert MarnetteD's edit, the portion of the edit summary stating "odd apparently did not realize, despite the two references, that "Automatic" is not part of the name of the ENIAC" was entirely invalid as Toddst1 had already removed "Automatic" in this edit. All Robert K S needed to do to get back to his preferred version of the article was to remove the bolding of the first letter of each word in the lead sentence. As such, I find the second part of Robert K S's edit summary "it's one editor who knows what he's doing and another who does not", quite inappropriate. Robert K S does not seem to understand when he is doing wrong as he did similar things at Jeopardy! and the subsequent discussion at WT:TV. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that while posting notifications to the three editors that I mentioned in this report, I found this discussion on Toddst1's talk page. In it Robert K S demonstrates some disturbing paranoia regarding Toddst1's alleged association with (referred to as TPH in the discussion) and 's supposed "cabal". I assume that I'll be the next "member" after opening this report. Regardless, Robert K S's state of mind does not really seem to be one that should be given advanced privileges like rollback. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear history of WP:EW on multiple articles. Rollback removed in 2009 following edit warring. Pattern of behavior shows paranoia toward Ten Pound Hammer. Has constructed his own fiefdom of Jeopardy!-related articles for 10+ years, and challenges WP:ME to family of articles with virility. Habitually edits in bad faith when questioned about own behavior, while fully expecting other to WP:AGF. Talk page history shows inability to get the point regarding evidenced pattern of behavior. AldezD (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Robert K S has had a long history with me, but he hasn't crossed my path much in a long time. He was fiercely defending articles like Jeopardy! set evolution despite it being utterly unsourced fan cruft, and he insists on having everything on the Jeopardy! article his way in violation of WP:OWN and WP:AGF. I thought for sure he'd learned by now since I hadn't had any clashes with him in years, but this recent debacle has proven that nothing has changed. I didn't confront him on his talk page when he started wikilawyering and assuming that I was in cahoots with anyone (which is utterly facetious on its face -- when have I ever even interacted with Toddst1 at all for Robert to think I'm using anyone to conspire against him? If anything, Robert has only gotten worse since the last time I had a clash with him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the paranoia seems unambiguous and as TPH stated, unfounded. Robert appears to have no concept of what is and is not WP:VANDALISM and has continued to misuse the rollback privilege to edit war, violating 3RR even after it was pointed out to him.  He's continued edit warring on that article even after this report was filed.  Removing rollback privileges seems like the minimum outcome.   Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the "obvious vandalism" that Robert K S reverted wasn't obvious. Disruptive maybe, vandalism not. The IP obviously thinks what he is adding is correct, as has been discussed on the talk page, and there has been no attempt to communicate with the editor on his talk page so WP:AGF applies, certainly not by Robert K S. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:B4 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 4)  "/* Controversy */Added the reality of the situation"


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


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


 * Comments:

POV-pushing. GABgab 21:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I already blocked them for 31 hours per a report at WP:AIV. ST47 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1001:B10C:E0A2:E155:A4C2:4756:CE4 reported by User:Orville (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  the editor's entire history is reverting this article and blanking their talk page (IP editor)
 * 2)  LightandDark2000
 * 3)  LightandDark2000
 * 4)  LightandDark2000
 * 5)  LightandDark2000
 * 6)  LightandDark2000
 * 7)  LightandDark2000

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LightandDark2000 blanked, but agreed to stop Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP user blanked the page with no comment

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

Comments:

Potential BLP violations regarding a rumoured death of the article' subject without reliable confirmation from other sources. Last good version was: 881221017 from January 2019. An RfPP has also been placed due to the rumoured, but unconfirmed death and the frequency of back and forth edits today from other editors as well.  Orville talk 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I personally saw this as blatant BLP vandalism, rather than a simple content dispute. This is especially marked by the fact that the Edit Filters caught this person renaming their band from "Ratz" to "The Rat". From what I saw, it definitely looked like some kind of vandalism. Anyway, I stopped even before getting the notice on my talk page.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * LightandDark2000 stopped prior to this action. I included them for violating the revert rule and for BLP violations; their actions were actually re-adding the unconfirmed death information (maybe unintentionally).  Orville talk 23:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually have no opinion on the content subject myself. I think that the information was added by some other editors over the course of the last day or so. If there was an earlier content dispute on the article, I was completely unaware of it.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: After this comment by the IP, I'm convinced that this is an LTA, regardless of whether or not their edits were valid. I've definitely seen this before. However, I can't recall the name of this LTA.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Urielscott reported by User:Isingness (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User apparently works for company I wrote about, and began an edit war with someone else at that company, which had spilled over onto my talk page. I’ve tried to be civil in replying but it’s gotten to be too much. I nominated the page for deletion as I didn’t want anything to do with this and the page is of nominal notability. Strangely enough the person concerned that some kind of consultant was involved (user:digitalmint I assume) then rescued the page through a Refund, and began stalking me on my talk page. It’s clear that someone might have been contracted from the username of the person this user reverted on the company page, but I’m getting caught in the crossfire here and I’d like to move on from this. I hate to report this as it’s a new user, but it’s well past 3 reverts now and I’ve gone out of my way to be helpful. I’m a little confused too by some of their rhetoric, but no matter, the reverting of their harassment off my talk page is starting to be a bit stressful. Isingness (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Djensen409 reported by User:Meters (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* June 2019 */ brd"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of aerospace engineers. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This report is about one particular list entry, but in general the user just does not seem to understand that material should be sourced, list entries should be notable and meet the list criteria, links should be appropriate (not red links, DABS,or to the wrong person), and that contested edits should be discussed. Meters (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One week full protection. The ones from the 28 June are stale. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * really don't see how this is useful. The user made the identical edit 4 times in 3 days with no response to edit summaries and posts on his or her talk page and the article's talk page. It's not 3RR but this is the edit warring board, not just the 3RR board.. Dismissing three edits as stale because they were a few hours more than 24 hours prior to the fourth edit seems very odd. I left the contested edit as was when I opened this report, so fully protecting the article accomplishes nothing. I wasn't going to edit it until this was resolved, and the other editor has no reason to edit it, or even discuss it now. A week from now the contested edit will still be in the article, and I doubt the other user will have made any talk page response.. Meters (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Petulant Clerk reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 904317700 by Shellwood (talk)"
 * 2)  "no"
 * 3)  "revert potentially libellous edit"
 * 4)  "revert per WP:BLP, this edit exempt from usual 3-revert rule"
 * 5)  "absolutely disgraceful, for shame"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report. (TW)"

Clearly an account created in order to avoid scrutiny. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:
 * Account has been indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:119.94.250.185 reported by User:HappyINC (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "草泥马"
 * 2)  "Eat shit."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 903961661 by HappyINC (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 904004925 by HappyINC (talk)"
 * 5)  "the game"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps removing the parameter in the production section that says that they made Inanimate Insanity on YouTube, and it’s true. I keep telling them to stop but they continue. Also please note that user in second revert told me to “eat shit” and that counted as a personal attack. Happy INC (Let’s chat!) 15:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like HappyINC has been edit warring on this article for some time now as well as that IP. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m actually right, I’m telling you, in that article, Frederator did produce for Inanimate Insanity. The IP user doesn’t think so. Here is some proof: [] I’m actually doing the right thing. Happy INC  (Let’s chat!) 22:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit warring has nothing to do with who is right. BTW, you never warned the IP about edit warring as required.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet the user still continues even though it hasn’t edited ever since yesterday. Happy INC  (Let’s chat!) 01:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ke an and User:Darius Musteikis reported by User:Kyuko (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:
 * 1)  "fake news, not supported by the facts"
 * 2)  "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1941 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
 * 3)  "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1940 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
 * 1)  "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1941 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
 * 2)  "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1940 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Users have repeatedly deleted any mention of the widely-reported controversies surrounding the article's subject. All such mentions used NPOV language, were well-cited, and avoided taking a stance on the controversy. (See diffs of the users' reverts.) Kyuko (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In a content dispute, no admin cares how right you think you are. "But my version is better" is not a defense against a charge of edit warring. If you find yourself unable to reach a consensus with the other parties in a content dispute, follow further steps outlined at Dispute resolution. You don't get to win the dispute by being the first to report someone here. By the way, are you also editing the article and talk page while logged out? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not. Kyuko (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC) I will follow the steps at Dispute resolution in case this is found to be the inappropriate place to resolve the issue. Kyuko (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was discussing the content blocks Kyuko was constantly placing on Adolfas Ramanauskas page, yet without dicsussion Talk:Adolfas_Ramanauskas reaching the consensus, Kyuko started to place his favourite content blocks again. These content block are based on media and PR campaigns rather than facts. No primary sources to support Kyuko's statements were presented. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: I have opened a dispute resolution case at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Kyuko (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan reported by User:KoopaLoopa (Result: Reporter indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 904466401 by KoopaLoopa (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 904462913 by KoopaLoopa (talk) We DID discuss. Multiple users disagree with you which constitutes a consensus. It literally IS a studio album from which all the tracks were recorded in a studio. There’s no such thing as just "album". It is not our fault you’re unfamiliar with basic music terminology. Reporting you to an admin"
 * 3)  "The consensus on the talk page is against you. Don’t try this again unless you want an admin involved for your edit warring."
 * 4)  "Dummy edit; that edit summary was directed toward KoopaLoopa, not MarioSoulTruthFan."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 904154196 by KoopaLoopa (talk) There are sources calling it a studio album. Stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss your proposed change. Per WP:BRD, the last stable version called it a "studio album" so that should stay. "
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by KoopaLoopa: Don’t cherrypick the one source that uses your preferred wording. Most sources are calling it his next album without using the word "compilation" (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by KoopaLoopa: Don’t cherrypick the one source that uses your preferred wording. Most sources are calling it his next album without using the word "compilation" (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on No.6 Collaborations Project. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ replying to the Fans - Marano & MarioSoulTruth (pun intended)"
 * 3)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ reply"
 * 4)   "/* Studio or compilation? */"
 * 5)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ Replying to MarioSoulTruthFan (using reply-link)"
 * 6)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ Replying to KoopaLoopa (using reply-link)"
 * 7)   "/* Studio or compilation? */ add more"


 * Comments:

MaranoFan has been adding "studio" to the introduction of this article repeatedly despite objections from myself and another user on the talk page. They refuse to discuss further after I tried to make a compromise and they keep undoing my edits despite the consensus being against them. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not been "adding studio" to the album article. I literally created it and it was always listed as a studio album. KoopaLoopa (who joined WP two months ago) randomly showed up and decided to remove it. They were reverted and explained that according to WP:BRD they need to discuss it further before enforcing their bold edit again. The discussion did happen on the talk page and two users (including myself) concluded that it is a studio album. KoopaLoopa continued to edit war anyway and has been removing the "studio" wording which everyone except him has agreed upon. The consensus is against him and he needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This user has been edit warring continuously and removing a wording which no one else has an issue with. A simple look at the article's history reveals that this user has made just as many reverts as me, which really calls for a WP:BOOMERANG on this report. I acted with consensus, this person did not.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 11:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you lying? "two users (including myself) concluded..."? WTF? You're the only user "concluding" that. Mario does not support your argument and it was him who chose not reinstate your edit here. Stop lying and distorting this to make it look like you haven't done anything wrong. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mario literally has weighed in on the talk page and agrees it’s a studio album. You’re the ONLY person taking issue with that basic terminology. He just removes the references in your linked diff, you are the one who removed the "studio" wording, newbie.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 11:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. When Mario chose not to readd your edit, it basically implies he agrees with mine, and thus at that point the page became the neutral version. When you continued to edit war and reverted Mario's edit, you escalated the situation without discussing further. I invited you twice on the talk page for a comment but you did not want to say anything more. That suggests you're happy at ignoring discussion and continuing to keep your preferred version. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Are you even thinking before writing literally any nonsense to skew the situation in your favour? The wording that has always been in the article and no one else took issue with except you is "studio album". Mario has never ever removed that wording from the article, nor has anyone else except you Mr. KoopaLoopa. The discussion on the talk page literally confirms Mario agrees that it’s a "studio album".—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When you create an article with false information and another user removes it, it does not automatically give you the advantage of the "has always been" argument. Mario was clearly referring to the literal aspect not what he actually thinks this project is. You should've stopped edit-warring after he made the edit but you've continued it and now we're here. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally what? It is correct information. The album is literally his next studio album and MTV backs that fact. His bio and discography article also list it with his studio album. And yes, everyone totally had the right to revert you when you boldly changed the wording to something else. You not knowing this confirms you haven’t read WP:BRD, please READ what experienced editors tell you to instead of blindly starting an edit war with them.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 11:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not! There are sources calling Subtract his fourth studio album that directly contradict your addition of "studio" to this project which Sheeran himself called a 'compilation album'. I asked a question yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability about contradicting sources and the editors there suggested we should go with the majority of sources. Here, the only source that describes this project as a studio album is MTV and I have pointed out on the talk page why it is unsuitable. The majority of sources call this just an album so it's what the wording should be and the other editor does not agree with you. You cannot claim you have consensus backing you when there isn't. KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, it is! Sources use a variety of terms to refer to musical projects. For example, a song may be referred to as "single", "song", "track" etc. but we always go for "single" as the main wording. Similarly, most sources are not formal enough to call something a "studio album" every time, so they call it just "album" but the convention on WP is always to call them studio albums. I think I would know as someone who has worked on several good articles about albums/EPs!! And consensus is on my side too btw. Any admin who will respond to this report will see and know that, you’re not fooling anyone bro :). You’re the only person who has removed this wording, the only one who has a problem and have made at least five reverts here even though virtually no one agrees with you. WP:BOOMERANG.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 12:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You made five reverts as well and even more before I made my edit so what are you trying to prove? My reverts are justified because I was restoring the neutral version, in which the other editor implied support for my edit, forming a consensus against yours. And don't bro me if you don't know me. KoopaLoopa (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go. and. read. WP:BRD. The last stable version of the page before the edit warring was which called it a "studio album". The fact that you’re still fighting even though you have no policy backed argument (because you’ve not even read them) really shows that you need a WP:MENTOR. But don’t expect me to help you, I’m done here. I will help people when they ask me for it. You're welcome to keep typing but I’ll suggest kicking the battleground mentality down a notch and actually reading some policies. Apologising in advance to any admins who will have to waste their time reading through this.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 12:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * KoopaLoopa indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Freelion (Result: Freelion blocked and Alexbrn warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: g/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlexbrn&type=revision&diff=904268824&oldid=904213888

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Comments:

This editor is clearly doing a hatchet job on this article. He has cherry picked the worst sounding parts of references to pour scorn on the movement. Whenever I try to balance the article by including more context from those very same references, or other references, he reverts everything I have done. He is wiki-lawyering, pointing out minor errors and linking to various Wikipedia rules that he claims I have broken. He has shown no intention of working collaboratively or being helpful, has not responded constructively to any of my points on the talk page and is not addressing individual changes – he just continually reverts everything that I have done. He is being deliberately obstructive. Freelion (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Freelion for 72h for edit-warring. They were blocked for 36h in April 2019 for violating 3RR on the same article. Thus, this is simply a resumption of the same conduct. Although has also been edit-warring, they have not violated 3RR and, contrary to Freelion's statements above, they are discussing Freelion's changes reasonably on the Talk page. The picture Freelion paints of Alexbrn's conduct is self-serving and false. Still, Alexbrn is warned that they risk being blocked if they edit-war in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Edward Zigma being repported by User:Harshil169 (Result: Malformed )
Page:- User being reported:-

Different attempts to solve the conflicts on the page
 * 1)

Comments:

This editor is included in the edit war with me on the page I mentioned. He is removing the reports and websites which include the word Muslims. Although, he doesn't site any type of wikipedia policy for justification. Kindly look at his activities and take appropriate action on him.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )
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:

On 19 june 2019, added a POV tag to the above article. I reverted him and added sources to the article. Since then, the reported editor is actively edit warring against at least 3 editors :, a Pakistani IP and me (but he did not break the 3RR since he's an experienced user). The reported user is trying to add unreliable sources from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the article by the mean of edit-warring and without any consensus while several editors, including, and me told him on the article's talk page that his sources are not reliable and while he has already been strongly warned by an admin to desist from such disruptive behaviors. There is no evidence that the reported editor is willing to listen to the admin who warned him, rather, everything seems to indicate that he intends to keep edit warring in order to discredit a quite well sourced article. Admins' intervention is requested. Thanks. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not the whole story. There's already a 3rd opinion by an experienced admin which the users are ignoring. Also, how the IP suddenly showed up is interesting. -- M h hossein   talk 12:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing debate over the POV of the article however Wikaviani asserts that there should not be a tag showing this. Also "The reported user is trying to add unreliable sources from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the article by the mean of edit-warring" is baseless and Wikaviani should be warned against making false accusations. -- M h hossein   talk 12:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The admin who intervened never gave you a white card for edit-warring against three other editors, he asked to all parties to assume good faith (including you ...) and gave his opinion about the lede. He also disagreed with the inclusion of the film from Hashemi (PRESS TV) that you wanted to include as a "source". Also, for your information, i'm not living in Pakistan, thus the IP you're currently edit warring with is not me. You really need to stop making baseless accusations and battleground comments when you disagree with fellow wikipedians, as another veteran admin asked you less than 4 months ago. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be boomerang here, since although you were told by the admin there are POVs which should be included, you kept on removing the tag by edit warring. -- M h hossein   talk 11:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we go, now, you're trying to mislead people about what the admin said. Here is his main comment on the article's talk page, the one i suppose, you're referring to, since his only other comment there was that one. Now, could you please point to the part of the admin's comment where he asked you to edit war ? the part where he asked you to add a POV tag to the whole article just because the lead should include the IRI claims of conspiracy (and with extra care since IRI is the only country that supports that so called conspiracy theory) ? The part where he asked you to accuse fellow Wikipedians of sockpuppetry without any serious evidence ? The part where he asked you to act in a WP:BATTLEGROUND way with other users ? Thanks in advance. Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: No admin is gonna do anything about this? I mean it got archived - astounding competence and consistency indeed.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:45.50.57.253 reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&type=revision&diff=904187269&oldid=903303627
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=904188401
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904243278
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904440198
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=904440319
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=904440319

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've been dealing with this editor on a number of pages, as seen in contributions and user talk, they have a significant pattern of disruptive editing, they ignore repeated requests to stop disruptive editing Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:8803:2A00:9A00:A86E:3E75:DC3:B01B reported by User:Wikiacc (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 904703436 by LightandDark2000 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 904697517 by Wikiacc (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 904689548 by Wikiacc (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 904684457 by MJL (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 904680002 by MJL (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Presidents of Venezuela. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP removed Guaido from the list; this was discussed previously (see talk and protection log). Rather than engaging in discussion, has continued to revert: five reverts in the past five hours. Requesting a temporary block under 3RR. Wikiacc (¶) 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw that User:LightandDark2000 reported the same behavior at WP:AIV. Wikiacc (¶) 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ST47 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Alizabeth blon reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Pregnancy and children */"
 * 2) and this one as well. And maybe others
 * 1)  "/* Pregnancy and children */"
 * 2) and this one as well. And maybe others
 * 1) and this one as well. And maybe others


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

warned about edit warring here MPS1992 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) See also WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ajñavidya reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: 31 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: (another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing on several pages. His views have not been supported by others on the talk page, and he has been reinserting the same information again today now seven times. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit clash) I regard Ajñavidya's edits as highly tendentious with a very obvious political POV. They are very unwilling to drop their preferred sticks. I have just had to give them warnings for blanking valid content which, in addition to being wrong it itself, was also a 3RR violation. I do feel that this is bordering on a WP:NOTHERE situation. They just got a short block (see above) as I was typing this comment. If this works then that is fair enough but I would not be at all surprised to see us back here in a few days. If so, the question will be whether to attempt a topic ban or just to show them the door. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jtfolden reported by User:11 west (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user jtfolden is reverting wholesale all the detailed and well documented changes I have made without due consultation, and despite me providing clearly referenced original sources. I maintain that despite I am being the only user quoting widely acclaimed primary sources, user jtfolden has been making changes and assumptions based on secondary sources and his personal agenda, while rejecting mine. I can prove this with a well documented series of factual errors and misquotations, including the changing of dates and the ommission of key words to demonstrate arbitrary facts that is part of his personal agenda, while in the meantime he is ignoring or diminishing other viewpoints on the subject 11 west (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Anyway, did you read what I wrote on your talk page? El_C 02:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Woof)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Roxy the dog has doubled down on disruption by argumentative profanity on her user talk page. I do not appreciate the incivility; without it, I would not have reported this incident here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is stale; Roxy has stopped editing the article now and moved onto other things, so I don't think any administrator action is required. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved on to another edit war? Yep... Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:OneColumbia reported by User:Pebblefire (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously makes disruptive edits to the Columbia University page, makes claims without official primary source documentation as stated in wiki policies, does not wait for consensus and continues to make edits on the main article, has made factually inaccurate remarks and personal attacks about my characteristics which is not conducive to the collaborative, fact-based community in wikipediaPebblefire (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up edit warring because the user who reported me, Pebblefire, has been blocked from editing Wikipedia due to edit warring, is accused by other users of being a sockpuppet account and has been editing the Teachers College article since April 2016, with a very high change of having COI issues. In fact, Pebblefire and I agree that Teachers College is an affiliate but Pebblefire objects that such designation should be included in the drop-down list because it's already included in the article.--OneColumbia (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer has been indefinitely blocked as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:66.26.73.13 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* End of siege */ 3RR exemption"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR exemption */ typo"


 * Comments:

3RR exemption for me: Some of the reverted edits were truly vandalism, i.e. they broke off templates and/or images. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just by viewing past edits, the IP clearly has an WP:AGENDA. Now the IP is changing era-styles without consensus or even bothered to discuss the topic. Apparently, this has already happened before in 2018: David and twice at Gimbal. A justifiable block. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, the IP is from the Bible Belt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: I have semiprotected Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) for three months. Warring on the *era* (AD vs CE) has been continuing for some time. This has included a number of moves of the article itself without discussion, so I've put move protection on the article name. Further title changes should use the WP:RM process. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Blueberry72 reported by User:DanWarpp (Result: Both users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and refusal to discuss in talk, I've explained to them that the reason for the edits is per WP:INFOBOXREF, which is implemented in the artist's other albums. DanWarpp (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You forgot to report yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that I have respected Wikipedia's rules reverting DamWarpp's edits. He removed sources of music genres from the infobox and there wasn't mention of those genres in the body of the page, so they had to be sourced in the infobox. In his last edit he has cited and sourced those genres in Composition section, so I didn't revert that edit, I just fixed the text. Blueberry72 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of you "respected Wikipedia's rules". I'm glad you both think it's resolved, but your dispute should have played out on the article's Talk page, not by edit-warring in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are both warned that edit-warring in the future may result in blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:1022:2A4:98FB:3D24:5B18:41F1 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */Take That, You Mean Old FilmandTVFan28!"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */Fuck You, FilmandTVFan28!"
 * 3)  "How This?"
 * 4)  "How Is?"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */What Do You Think, New One?"
 * 6)  "/* Plot */"
 * 7)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Creating hoaxes on For Pete's Sake (film). (TW)"
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mian Ahmad Sulaiman reported by User:Wugapodes (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Background */"
 * 2)  "/* Family */"
 * 3)  "/* Background */"
 * 4)  "/* Family */ new section"
 * 5)  "/* Born */ new section"
 * 6)  "/* Father Name */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

User keeps reinserting WP:NOTFORUM material on the talk page after two warnings from and is way over 3RR Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Newshunter12 reported by User:178.239.161.219 (Result: Declined)

 * 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:

User keeps editing against consensus and has violated the 3RR they been warned about violating the 3RR in the past as seen on there talk page. 178.239.161.219 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Curious that an IP makes this report. Two editors have been involved recently in the edit war. I'm wondering whether best option is to protect the page or to block both participants (Newshunter12 and ) in the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Since parties are engaging at the talk page, I don't think any action is required at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * for what it is worth, I have not violated WP:3RR and neither have they, and like you said, we are trying to work out a compromise. I have no idea who the IP is, but it isn't me. Rockstone   talk to me!   15:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have both reached a compromise on the article's talk page over the disputed edit and are continuing to discuss the wider issue of the Calment age dispute. I agree that neither he nor I edited the article enough times to constitute edit warring per WP:3RR. For months I've been getting threats on my talk page and now this report today and an imposter account yesterday that was indefed. Clearly, one or more people want me off Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ec1801011 reported by User:Ritchie92 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 904683242 by Ritchie92 (talk)  I shall keep reverting until you stop your disruptive edits"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 904674685 by Ritchie92 (talk) I shall keep reverting until you stop your disruptive edits."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 904667275 by Ritchie92 (talk) You are right a consensus should be reached, so don't remove information until that consensus is reached."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 904664994 by Ritchie92 (talk) Reverting the edits of a disruptive user who refuses to stop edit warring."
 * 5)  "Added back information removed by disruptive editor who continues to engage in edit warring."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 904491928 by Ritchie92 (talk) Have provided amble reasoning for the inclusion and yet this user has continued to edit war."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring on Identity and Democracy */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring on Identity and Democracy */"


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


 * Comments:

I reverted first an edit by the user which I did not think was proper. Then he started reverting back without engaging in discussion (I started the discussion in the talk page to no reply). At some point he replied but kept reverting without following the discussion. Ritchie92 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours, due to continuation of the war on 5 July, subsequent to the diffs listed above. I made an effort at persuasion at User talk:Ec1801011 but this went nowhere. Either the user doesn't understand the edit warring policy, or doesn't wish to follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:StutzTCB reported by User:TropicAces (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Critical reception */ no sock; revert TropicArcres article ownership vandalism"
 * 2)  "/* Critical reception */ undid continued article vandalism by Tropic Acres"
 * 3)  "/* Critical reception */ This matter has been settled at the article talk page to INCLUDE the Audience Score.  When you see "Verified" it means Rotten Tomatoes confirmed a user bought a ticket to the movie"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

“Discussed” (in loosest of terms) on my Talk page but to no avail; not going to revert him a third time and risk getting flagged myself TropicAces (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User TropicAcres has engaged in an edit war at The Dirt (Film) page making 15 (FIFTEEN) destructive edits to the article AFTER a talk page discussion decided to INCLUDE the COMPLETE Rotten Tomatoes review INCLUSIVE with the VERIFIED purchased tickets Audience Score. However, user TropicAcrea has assumed article ownership and is guilty of Edit Warring himself in his biased attempt to deliberately EXCLUDE the favorable audience review which he now falsely claims is “unsourced”. The source is cited as Rotten Tomatoes website for this film. Check the link: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dirt_2019

We (Rotten Tomatoes) now have Verified Ratings and Reviews to make our Audience Score more useful When you see "Verified" it means we've confirmed a user bought a ticket to the movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

. StutzTCB, what do you mean by we (Rotten Tomatoes)? Are you affiliated with the site? Anyway, please do not edit war, aiming instead at trying to reach consensus on the article talk page. El_C 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 904977717 by Deacon Vorbis (talk) (1) Removal of sourced information without a consensus on the talk pqge to do so (2) POV edits.  If you have no horse, leave the article asw it was per BRD so that discussion can be had with article in the consensus state."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 904976405 by Deacon Vorbis (talk) Yes, but per BRD, we discuss tih the article in the status quo ante. Please do not revert unless you relish an ANI report."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 904918868 by Beyond My Ken (talk): Discussw (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 904918355 by Wumbolo (talk) nope, just look at the sources"
 * 5)  "/* top */ rem totally ridiculous tag"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

BMK has ten previous EW blocks. The other editor should perhaps be warned. w umbolo  ^^^  14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have they been blocked recently, I ask while noting that you have. cygnis insignis 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, . Could you please not do this? Cheers,   Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite what some others may think, I do try. The truth is, I lose track of the number of edits and the time period they take place in.  In general, these incidents happen when people rufuse to follow BRD, and all I'm trying to do is re-establish the status quo ante during discussions, and it gets me into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BMK has a point about pre edit warring version. No idea why Wumbolo felt the need to replace the tag BMK removed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

. Please note that I have added Template:Editnotices/Page/Ben Shapiro to the article, so 1RR is now in effect. El_C 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User:1hitsmusic reported by User:Rutebega (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Miley Cyrus - The Backyard Sessions - "Jolene"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905094054 by OxonAlex (talk)"
 * 3)  "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete  1hitsmusic —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)"
 * 4)  "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete    1hitsmusic "
 * 5)  "Undid revision 905090646 by Aboideau (talk)"
 * 6)  "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete"
 * 7)  "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 905089080 by OxonAlex (talk)"
 * 1)  "LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905089080 by OxonAlex (talk)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1hitsmusic&diff=905094301&oldid=905092143
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "July 2019"

Not an article and not on TP, but I've replied to the editor's message here
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

We're at 9 reverts already, and this editor isn't taking any hints. — Rutebega ( talk ) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Changed a few things since twinkle isn't perfect — Rutebega  ( talk ) 20:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Was reported to WP:AIV, as I considered removing CFD templates to be vandalism, especially after being warned. Has also been adding his justification for category, repeatedly, to talk pages.  OxonAlex    - talk  20:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that, thanks. There's not much written about it in the deletion policy, other than not to do it. Hopefully AIV will sort it out. — Rutebega ( talk ) 20:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User:5Ept5xW reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert dishonest reversion, will remove blank section Undid revision 905146586 by Calidum (talk)"
 * 2)  "dishonest reversion Undid revision 905146323 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 3)  "this is not a quote, it is a description of a historical event. These are two different things, can you stop being threatening and get with the Wikipedia MOS and the NASA history office guidelines? Undid revision 905139364 by Randy Kryn (talk)"
 * 4)  "current NASA history office guidelines are to use gender neutral language where possible (https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html). Current Wikipedia guidelines are also to use gender neutral language where possible. Undid revision 905132519 by Almostfm (talk)"
 * 5)  "see "Principle_of_least_astonishment" Undid revision 904941987 by JustinTime55 (talk)"
 * 6)  "revert vandalism of accessibility edit Undid revision 904911498 by JustinTime55 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 5 July 2019 18:37 (UTC)
 * 7 July 2019 5:14 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion is here.  Calidum   05:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Also, trying to start a vote here and here OkayKenji (talk page) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that is user, in a somewhat misguided attempt to be helpful. (Please see WP:NOTVOTE.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 05:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I signed it, but creating a vote is okay? Should I remove it? OkayKenji (talk page) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article, if you have a problem first discuss on the talk page instead of trying to sneak reverts past me. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

User continuously removed redirect and added unreliable sources. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is very likely a sock of SKS please see Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 03:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Louisdog6 reported by User:JeBonSer (Result: Blocked)
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)
 * 13)

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

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

Comments:

The user of this account is only using this for removing an Infobox's image without reasons. See the user's all contributions.

This user account is disruptive for persistent removing an Infobox's image. Every time I revert these actions this user will also do the same within an interval of days or even months. The page which the user made its act is now protected with pending changes protection. But the protection is useless because the user is an autoconfirmed user. So this user account must be indefinitely blocked so it can't be operated anymore.  Je Bon Ser  (talk &#124; sign) 20:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a single purpose account.--v/r - TP 14:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:TParis (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: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Comments:


 * MaxBrowne2 has violated WP:CANVASS by positing a pointed message on a Wikiproject talk page to gather supporters for their view. User:No_Great_Shaker replaced that pointed message with a neutral one.  MaxBrowne2 warred to keep their pointed message.  They are hiding behind WP:Talk page guidelines but there is no exception for WP:EW for TPG.  They have refused to participate at ANI.--v/r - TP 14:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not revert legitimate opinions from talk pages. Period. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A legitimate opinion is fine but not in the context of issuing an invitation to a discussion elsewhere. People who visit that discussion must be able to make up their own minds about it without prior influence. That is why WP:CANVAS recommends Template:Please see. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The WT:CHESS people are more than capable of making their own minds up. I should know, right ? MaxBrowne2 (talk)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw this. No evidence of any "influence" because there isn't any and wouldn't be any. All WP:CHESS members who saw his post know Maxbrowne2 had a concern over a likely WP:SNOW-close issue. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If Maxbrowne2 posts his opinion, does it exert influence on any active WP:CHESS member's view re the history of chess having theoretical foothold in Rome? Not even remotely likely.) It may on surface have looked like WP:CANVAS to uninvolved non-project members. But not really. --IHTS (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Vasanthy546576 reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/T.shan56/Archive MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked Indeff as sockpuppet by User:Bbb23.--v/r - TP 23:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dcflyer reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3RR violation on 7 July:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Persistent edit-warring without violating 3RR:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:


 * The user persistently edit-wars his changes into the article without any attempts to follow WP:BRD. The editor has violated 3RR once (today), but has on other occasions just persistently edit-warred while avoiding violating 3RR (going to 3 reverts within 24 hrs, and coming back later to continue reverting). I've repeatedly notified the user of both 3RR and WP:BRD, yet the user brazenly continues to edit-war without ever joining the talk page to discuss his edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans - I happened to see this case after (regretfully) having to come here (below) about another issue and was curious as to why you keep removing well-sourced content re: NYTimes Best Sellers, calling his edits UNDUE? While I agree that edit warring is not the answer, neither is constantly reverting unjustifiably. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours There are no exemptions in the EW policy for having well-sourced content.   I'm not going to block you because we have a tiny bit of history, but I'm giving you a heads up that I may have been inclined to block even for 3 reverts on an article with discretionary sanctions.  Try to play it safer in the future.--v/r - TP 23:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Britishfinance, read the comment above for some context on why Wikipedia policy and admin practices are stacked against regular veteran editors. This is one reason why veteran editors just give up. This is the first edit-warring noticeboard case I've filed in forever, and I only did so because the other editor grotesquely violated it (clear 3RR vio, multiple warnings stretched over weeks, zero attempt to discuss on the talk page) and signaled an intent to continue doing so. Yet, the admin gives the other editor a slap on the wrist, and chastises me for filing the case. This is one reason why bad editors and bad editing persist, and why regular veteran editors have to give up and let the bad editors win. The solution in this case should have apparently been for me to let the other editor bully the content into the article, while I spend all eternity talking to myself on the article's talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If Dcflyer grotesquely violated it, you're one revert away from grotesquely violating it. I wouldn't say that paints you as innocent.  You reverted 3 times on an article under discretionary sanctions - that's bad judgement.  48 hours for a 1st edit war is pretty consistent with this project.  Since this sat untouched for hours, I chose to act because a clear bright line was crossed.  Apparently you do not appreciate a volunteer's time, next time I'll let it sit because it appears no other admin was interested in helping you out here.--v/r - TP 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) I had no clue the article was under DS. (2) The grotesque violations concern more than just the 3RR violation, but it's very informative to know that no one would have done anything about the brazen nature of the edit-warring unless for the 3RR violation. Britishfinance, imagine if I had taken to this noticeboard to deal with the CIS sockpuppetry problems and edit-warring: If I had, I'd likely have been the one blocked for having reverted the sockpuppets 2-3 times whereas the editors who were blatantly not editing in good faith would have essentially gotten away scot-free. And I did consider bringing ModerateMikayla/Mike (one of the most prominent CIS socks) to this board when the editor violated 3RR on two separate occasions, but decided against it, precisely because of the [expected] response above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Matt Campbell reported by User:Edf55 (Result: No violation (yet))
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_Guy&diff=905238130&oldid=905201529
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah_Jones&diff=905226904&oldid=905212197
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1968&diff=905225903&oldid=905220435
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Music_Association_Award_for_Entertainer_of_the_Year&diff=905225895&oldid=905220479

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matt_Campbell

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenny_Chesney&diff=905225845&oldid=905203348

Comments:

Sorry I didn't save the reported? Here are the proofs: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/04/photographer-sues-for-failure-to-provide-creative-commons-required-attribution-philpot-v-wos.htm https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attributionEdf55 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * All i did was fix someone's mistake. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone has the right to change another users edits. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation. This is a content dispute about what is a "better" image, and Edf55 is not doing themselves many favours with their talk page comments. I have no idea what the Eric Goldman blog has to do with anything here (nothing, most likely). However, I *will* say (and this is a purely personal opinion) that the Buddy Guy image that Edf55 is reverting to is probably the better image - the Norah Jones / Kenny Chesney ones, not so much. But regardless of what you think, that's no reason to start edit-warring over it - discuss on the talk page(s), please; Edf55, you need to read WP:BRD. Further edit-warring on these articles will result in sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the Eric Goldman blog is, and it has nothing to do with it. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Edf55 (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Matt Campbell (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Edf55, you've been asked several times now to conduct talk page messages in English. Please do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Edf55 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not make accusations against other people that breach our Libel policy. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "OR (as per Talk page)"
 * 2)  "-box"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 904798608 by Rgvis (talk) I do not need to ask them again. See the Talk page."
 * 4)  "If one wants to read the results of more than a decade-long OR, they can read it in the article's history."
 * 1)  "If one wants to read the results of more than a decade-long OR, they can read it in the article's history."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Both users involved have engaged in discussion on talk page, but have continued to revert each other regardless. Polyamorph (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Response to 3RR warning and continued reversion after warning suggests this editor will continue this disruptive pattern of revert warring Polyamorph (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) I did not ignore WP:3RR. (2) The template message on the top of the article has contained the following warning since June 2009 : "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Actually, 99% of the article's text contained OR. (3) I deleted the 99% of the text and asked for the verification of the title of the article . Furthermore, I placed the following message on the article's Talk page : "What is the source of this article? Which book contains information about the Eastern Romance languages?". (4) restored the content without addressing my concerns.  (5) I reverted his edit, asking him in the edit summary to address the problems.  (6) Rgvis reverted my edit . (7) I transformed the article into a redirect page . Please remember that the possibily of the deletion of the whole article had been mentioned at top of the article for more than 10 years and I had asked for the verification of the article's title more than one month before the deletion (both with template messages and on the article's Talk page). (8) Rgvis undid my edit, and (9) I reverted his edit, again drawing his attention to the Talk page debate .  I also placed a message on his Talk page, asking him to read the discussion on the Talk page and do not restore an article without verifying its content. I also reminded him WP:3RR . (10) Rgvis reverted my edit, saying that he wants to protect the content of the article.  (11) I restored the short version of the article, asking for verification. . (12) In the meantime,  placed a warning on my Talk page and he also marked the article as reviewed. (Please, remember, that 99% of the text of the article could be deleted any time and this has been known for more than 10 years. Please also remember, that a template message and a Talk page discussion shows that the very subject of the article needs verification. However, Polyamorph ignored all these facts and reviewed the article.) Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: user is referring to my marking the page as reviewed. This article appeared in the new page feed as a result of it being blanked and reverted. As the page is not a new page and since it had appropriate tags placed I marked it as reviewed to remove it from the New Pages feed.Polyamorph (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you refer to a single reliable source which verifies the next sentences at the very beginning of the article? "The Eastern Romance languages are a group of Romance languages that developed in Eastern Europe (specifically in the Balkans) from the local variant of Vulgar Latin. Today, the group consists of Romanian, Aromanian and two other related minor languages Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian." That is why I told you that you intervened in a content debate without dedicating time to understand it. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you deal with the content dispute on the article talk page, or request assistance / request for comment elsewhere. Such matters should not be dealt with by revert warring.Polyamorph (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you realised that I dealt with the content dispute on the article talk page more than a month ago? Have you realised that all my concerns have been ignored? Have you relised that I suggested alternative methods to solve the problem (creating a redirect page vs seeking for verified texts). Have you realised that a template message at the top of the article has been noticing all editors for more than a decade (yes, more than ten years!) that the article can any time be deleted? (Just a side remark, I did not delete the article, but sought for the verification of its subject both in the article and in the Talk page more than a month ago.) Sorry, I do not want to be rude, but if you are unable to study the history of the article, you should not intervene. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I realise all those things. Polyamorph (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was already surprised at your conviction that you had realised all this issues. Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As an experienced user such as yourself should know, it does not matter who is right or wrong in such cases, edit warring is not the solution. And reverting further AFTER you have received formal notice reveals you are not prepared to resolve the dispute through finding consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We agree. Edit war is not the solution. If you read my records I have not been often sanctioned for edit warring during the last more than eleven years. If you had read the Talk page of the article before placing random template messages on my Talk page, you would have realised that I had made several attempts to seek a consensual approach. Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note is the other party involved in this content dispute, and the two users seem to be having similar disagreements on other pages. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have similar disagreements on other pages. And for the time being, we have been able to solve them without edit warring. Are you sure that your superficial approach is the best way to deal with problems in a sensitive area? Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahem, your own diffs provided above show you are engaged in an edit war.Polyamorph (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above answer. Do you say that my diffs above show that I am engaged in an edit war relating to other articles? Could you demonstrate it? Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the current content of this article was blocked in the last Borsoka's version, made after this user was warned not to make any changes, anymore.
 * More than that, this article is part of a series of articles of the larger Romance languages project, the other sister projects being the Western Romance languages and Italo-Dalmatian languages articles. During the development process of these articles, the mode of editing was similar, all of them receiving too few inline citations.
 * However, only the content of this article was deleted, while the others two were not affected. Of course, all these articles need to be improved, but this is not done through such radical actions. It would be fair to use the same set of measures for all articles that are in similar situations.
 * Why was not the content improvement in this article encouraged? Why do editors who have contributed over the past 14 years to this article are not treated in the same way as editors of the other sister articles (as per Assume good faith)? I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has come to work in such an arbitrary way. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC))
 * I am very dissapointed that you are making dramatic statements instead of improving the article. Have you found a reliable source to verify it? Please feel free to delete the other two articles as well if you think they also contain OR. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer to remain a constructive editor. (Rgvis (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC))

. El_C 07:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you mean a lazy or negligent editor? An editor who protects OR and ready to engage in an edit war for it can hardly be described as constructive, because OR contradicts one of the principal pillars of our community. Sorry, I stop debating this issue on this page. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has never been tagged as OR (it was only tagged as "needing additional citations"). This OR allegation it's just your assumption. (Rgvis (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC))

User:SHINGO154 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop making disruptive editings"
 * 2)  "stop please youre the only one who as a problem with the images and if they don't have the right licenses why don't reupload it with the right license this really is not necessary"
 * 3)  "There are no problems with images beacause the license its equal to allison becker image so to delete the images of João Félix you will have to delete the image of allison becker"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion */"


 * Comments:

After having some of its uploads deleted from Commons for license laundering, user SHINGO154 re-uploaded those images and re-added them to João Félix. User also added a new image, making it the 4th copyright violation. SLBedit (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Hhggtg3279 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Mines fine lord"
 * 2)  "Who are you the king of the internet? There isn’t any specific rule that sas under act so and so that bullet points can only be used for stars, because the fact is they and still characters that were portrayed with motion capture"
 * 3)  "/* Cast */This isn't Wikipedia and you've edited multiple times"
 * 4)  "/* Cast */"
 * 5)  "/* Cast */"
 * 6)  "/* Cast */"
 * 7)  "/* Cast */"
 * 8)  "/* Cast */"
 * 9)  "/* Cast */"
 * 10)  "/* Cast */"
 * 11)  "/* Cast */"
 * 12)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"
 * 3)  "/* Cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Persistent reverts and edit warring without listening to reason. Also disruptive editing and name calling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * . Talk page access disabled after telling me to fuck off in response to the block. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dftyapo and User:17 kutalmis bercin reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Dftyapo's Reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

17 kutalmis bercin's Reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Dftyapo:, 17 kutalmis bercin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Both users are being very disruptive, although User:17 kutalmis bercin at least reached out to the talk page... I get the feeling that his native language is not English. Requesting page protection and a block on both users. I am uninvolved. Rockstone  talk to me!   19:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: seems like my messages to them may have stopped the edit war. Hopefully both of them will calm down. Rockstone   talk to me!   19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The errors ixntroduced by 17 kutalmis bercin are serious, how can they be corrected without him reverting the changes? Dftyapo —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:R.Saringer reported by User:mm.srb (Result: Sock indeffed)
User:R.Saringer reported by User:mm.srb


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905173077&oldid=904002220&diffmode=source (-17.000 without a reason)
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905315403&oldid=905314474&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905319528&oldid=905317875&diffmode=source
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905383853&oldid=905380840&diffmode=source
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&diff=905395661&oldid=905395270&diffmode=source

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R.Saringer#Rascians_2

I hope that this way the report is okay, this is the frist one for me. Mm.srb (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked R.Saringer as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Zakatunwa reported by User:OskarJacobsen (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

User keeps deleting the following section: "In October 2018, a few days after he was nominated as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in Kwara State, the Premium Times newspaper reported that Atunwa did not take part in the mandatory National Youth Service. The paper further reported that Atunwa forged a certificate of exemption https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/291705-exclusive-sarakis-anointed-candidate-for-kwara-governorship-razak-atunwa-skips-nysc-forges-certificate.html. The politician denied the allegations, but did not institute any legal action against the investigative newspaper"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Abdulrazaq_Atunwa [diff]
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:41.190.12.74 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

There are at least eight more on a slightly different IP as well. Ifnord (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fleets reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "infobox"
 * 2)  "infobox"
 * 3)  "rv to last good version"


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


 * Comments:

Clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (this response to my warning should give you an indication). This user does make constructive edits, but I think they're being purely disruptive here, putting in the same edit summary ("infobox") and not explaining their edits, which I think go against the norm (removing caption, including countries in state links, etc.). 4TheWynne  (talk  •  contributions)  03:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just going back to the version that worked best. Left it alone as not interested in edit warring.Fleets (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * . You're both being ridiculous, making edits and reversions without actual explanations or attempts at communication. I'd be justified in blocking you both, but will refrain from sullying your clean block logs. If you would like to continue this dispute, take the next two weeks to communicate with each other on the talk page. Regards, ~Swarm~  {sting} 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is a clear case of both being short, and have no interest in edit warring. All I wanted was a more up to date image as the first thing seen. Am happy with whatever anyone wants to do with the Rusty's infobox and wouldn't want to rob anyone of the chance to improve the article.Fleets (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , two weeks is probably a bit too long in my opinion, but I appreciate your involvement nevertheless. I don't believe I was edit warring (and had no intention of doing so either), rather that I was reverting edits I thought were genuinely disruptive, but others might see it differently, so I can understand your perspective, and I didn't do enough to explain why I thought the edits were disruptive., I appreciate you not wanting to continue the dispute, but if the image (which is only a month newer and, in my opinion, inferior as a lead image) is the only thing you were worried about, why did you continue with the changes to the infobox? 4TheWynne   (talk  •  contributions)  06:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks is long, but not non-negotiable. If you come to an agreement, I will gladly unprotect. If you can't, then the harm caused to the article in the next two weeks will be minimal. It's on you guys. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like to change back to the previous version (being the version before the most recent revert listed), and has said that they're happy with whatever anyone wants to do with the infobox, so Fleets, are we in agreement?  4TheWynne   (talk  •  contributions)  07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 905475833 by Bilorv (talk)  absolutely no policy or WP:WikiProject Council procedure being followed in regards to this "closure"   Proposal shall remain active while gathering list of participants"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905457360 by Bilorv (talk) rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure" - WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
 * 3)  "rvt INVOLVED, non-admin "closure"  -  WikiProject Council proposals are not "closed", but archived when they become unnecessary - not the case here."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905198336 by MJL (talk)  there is no WikiProject Council process which uses such a "closure"."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 905192059 by MJL (talk) out of process "closure""
 * 6)  "Undid revision 904854642 by MJL (talk) rvt. the "closed" proposal is in the page history. This is a restarted/reworded proposal. Such WikiProject Council proposals are almost never "closed" even after a very long time, see others"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute:
 * 1) User_talk:MJL


 * Comments:

3RR is not an entitlement and Netoholic has deliberately gone up to 3RR twice. Six reverts in just over 48 hours against three other editors is edit warring. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv and other editors are edit warring to push a "closure" of a WikiProject proposal listed at WP:WikiProject Council. Such proposals are listed to gather interest in WikiProjects, and some are listed for several years while gathering contacts with potential participants. They are generally only archived after the proposed WikiProjects launch, or when a proposer has withdrawn it or gone inactive. There is no procedure for an outside group to "close" such a proposal - even one they dislike. Imagine if instead we were talking about WikiProjects related to rival sports teams, or countries, or political ideologies. It is RIDICULOUS to think some few outside people could come in a "close" such a proposal. This proposal has been listed only about 6 weeks, whereas one can easily see several at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals have been listed for years. This "close" by an WP:INVOLVED non-admin (and subsequent reverts by other INVOLVED participants) is completely against standard procedure on that page. This proposal has been the subject of several occasions of WP:GAMING by this same set of editors, and this is just more of the same. -- Netoholic @ 11:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - it doesn't matter what your opinion of the issue is, or the rights and wrongs, disputes like this should be resolved through dialog with the users, and accepted channels, not by repeatedly undoing multiple users. And performing six reverts in 48 hours, with a 24-hour window in between, while technically not breaching 3RR, is clear edit warring. Netoholic was blocked in April for edit warring too, so I strongly suggest they change the way they react when things don't go their way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2A00:801:406:F86:D091:2B62:D308:4DA5 reported by User:Alex Cohn (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 905511909 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905511773 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 905511258 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905510649 by 2A02:C7F:8C89:6200:404A:B6FD:7263:D2EA (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 905510525 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 905510109 by 216.208.132.219 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 905509979 by 38.32.8.114 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 905509874 by 2605:E000:8582:4100:9C09:FE58:11EC:39E3 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 905509217 by Grayfox0430 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Well past 3RR now... Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Lisamol reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: User's change

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Initial removal of redirect
 * 2) 2nd removal of redirect, 1st revert of me
 * 3) Adding article to redirect
 * 4) User improperly adding CSD template

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not respond to personal talk page messages.

Comments: User continously restored a redirect with unreliably sourced information. From talk page observation, user has a history of disruptive behavior and a previous editor noted that they were a potential sock. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask an admin to take a look at their UTP, contributions, and articles created (quite a few stubs in June-July). Their area of interest is Indian TV actors. There have also been some image copyvios but Commons took care of it - probably better if they didn't have to deal with it. Perhaps this is a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT or there may be a COI, I don't know. The removal of redirects for Chahat Pandey does tend to magnify the disruption somewhat when coupled with the other errors. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is true that my area of interest is Indian TV actors, but i'm not creating the pages for any financial profit, nor as an agent of any organisation. I am a great of Indian television serials fan and i create the pages of those television actors who do not have an official wiki page. i also created these pages of TV actors because personally i do respect their acting skills, you can cross check with any of the actors of whom i've created the pages whether they know me personally, or any with any organisation they are linked with. Moreover, if i had a financial profit, it  would have easy for me get their photographs added to the pages, since i had been uploading images from internet, i was blocked from commons. It was not just a child's play to create these pages, i had researched through various articles online collected information all different sources possible to give the best of the data possible. --Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol


 * In fact i had no intention to cause an edit disruption, since i had already been warned of disruption earlier for [Bhumika Gurung, i had sent a message to Emaus who had last redicted this page before i started editing asking her permission to recreate a new page which can seen in the following link *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emaus&action=edit&section=116, and  moreover since i did not want personal editing disruption with other editors, i did send a talk message to Etzedek24 which is given in the link provided *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etzedek24&action=edit&section=9. And as noted by a previous editor i'm not a potential sock of SKS. i had just been editing the mistakes of other editors and providing new valuable information into new wikipedia pages which is the right of any editor on wikipedia.--Lisamol (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Lisamol


 * (or other admins), any comment? This has been here for a few days now. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

. But 3RR was not violated (only three reverts listed). Seems to be resolved, anyway. El_C 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I never claimed they did violate 3RR. I was more concerned with the continued removal of redirects. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:כורכום (Result: Boomerang)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Despite talk page discussion addressing their concern that the edit misrepresents sources, Snooganssnoogans repeated their claim that the references are misrepresented. After the page was locked for edit-warring for three days, discussion continued with a third opinion request. The concerns of all participants were addressed. Snooganssnoogans did not wish to participate in the discussion and then claimed there's no consensus. I explained to them at least three times that they appear to be violating WP:OWN by repeatedly reverting the changes with an invalid revert reason. כורכום (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * has not violated 3RR but you have violated WP:BRD by trying to add content without consensus in a dispute. BRD is not BRRRRRRRRRRRRD. No action should be taken here other than maybe protecting the page fully and starting an RfC on the talk. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The report is not about 3RR, it's about edit-warring. One person's no-reason reverts do not merit an RfC, especially since their concerns have been addressed and a third opinion has joined the discussion to address any further concerns and achieve consensus. Note that consensus doesn't mean that Snooganssnoogans has to sign off on all the changes. כורכום (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a single-purpose account whose only edits to English Wikpedia is to insert text into the lede of Congestion pricing to give readers the false impression that congestion pricing does not reduce congestion (an extraordinary claim that is piss-poorly substantiated). I have given my reasons for opposing the text on the article's talk page: (1) The text does not accurately summarize the findings of the cited sources (the text misleadingly suggests that congestion pricing does not reduce congestion), (2) The text does not accurately reflect existing literature about congestion pricing, thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and (3) The text does not accurately summarize the body of the article. There is no consensus for the inclusion of this content in the lede. In fact, I oppose it, and I think A.D.Hope opposes it (although his comments were not entirely clear). The only clear advocate for the inclusion of this content is the single-purpose account above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All the claims added are directly present in the sources provided. You know this. We've discussed this. Nothing is misrepresented. כורכום (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * what kind of notification is this here going to an edit in April 2019 and adding two equal signs ~ I don't think that is proper notification ~ maybe might or might not see it  sounds like something behind the back ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That diff goes to a 10 July 2019 edit? And Snooganssnoogans is already participating in this discussion after receiving proper notification? Nothing is "behind the back"... כורכום (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter ~ proper notification is one similar to the one you copy edited today ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused... that notification was posted by me today. כורכום (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad I was confused ~ when I followed the wiki link in the history, it went to another editors edit ~ I apologize ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you did ~ when you made it a sub section to "Congestion pricing sources" ~ the section from my watch page goes to here wiki did not see the subsection first ~ once again I am sorry ~ hope you two iron it out ~mitch~ (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reporter has been indeffed as a sock of. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Britishfinance, you may find this of interest. Again, my time is being eaten up by a sockpuppet. And for the cherry on top, the sockpuppet tried to get me sanctioned for not allowing the the editor to force trash into a Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:108.26.225.219 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid a series of reverts. Do not remove "arguments against" you disagree with."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905651724 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 905650357 by Arjayay (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905614327 by Pencil Pusher (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 904892224 by Pencil Pusher (talk)"
 * 6)  ""Citation needed" removed for a self-evident statement."
 * 1)  ""Citation needed" removed for a self-evident statement."


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


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


 * Comments:


 * The "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" section is blank. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Cosmic_Sans reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  I instructed the user to self-revert after violating 1RR but the user refuses to do so.

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

Comments:


 * CS violated 1RR on the Barr page to force extremely misleading content into the article (a WP:BLP violation). After being instructed that the article was covered by 1RR and being told that he should self-revert, the user refused to comply. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, hello. I'm the user that was reported. My revert does not constitute a violation of the applicable 1RR rule. The current sanction is as follows: "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." I only made one revert. Snoogans linked to the same revert twice. I don't think this complaint was brought in good faith. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I only made one revert. Snoogans linked to the same revert twice." This is a straight-up lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be very specific, you linked to the revert in the first link, but the second link is an edit I made that was not a revert. For those who are reading: I added sourced material to the article. Snoogans removed it summarily without discussion. I reverted it back. The first link that Snoog provided is the revert. The second link is the original material I added to the article. There is only one revert. Anyone who clicks on those links can see what I mean. I think you're not acting in good faith here, Snoog. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) (EDIT: I'm sorry, I had that flipped. The second link is the revert, not the other way around.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's also important context here that this user has been informed why this content is extremely misleading and deceptive, yet still, the user refuses to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoog, I only made one revert, and in that revert I asked you take the discussion to the talk page. ANI/Edit Warring is not an additional forum to engage in a content dispute. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In consideration of the ongoing talk page discussion, and in a show of good faith, I removed the content. However, I still maintain that I only enacted one revert and that this complaint to ANI/Edit Warring was completely inappropriate. Cosmic Sans (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor self-reverted after an administrator instructed him to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoog, nobody agrees with you that this was a 1RR violation. I've noticed that you've stopped discussing this matter on the talk page. I'm not saying that you must do so now, but that if your intention is to object to the edit and then not participate in discussion, then eventually I will deem your objection abandoned and reinstate the material if nobody else objects. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation: "I will continue to edit-war this content into the article, even if editors have objected to it and in the absence of a consensus". The administrator EdJohnston explicitly instructed CS that this is a violation of the restrictions on the Barr page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snoog, you seem far more interested in litigating this content dispute on ANI/Edit Warring than you are in discussing it on the talk page of the article. I'm saying that if you have a valid objection to this material, I'd like to hash it out with you. The fact remains that this was not a 1RR violation. EdJohnston said it himself. Nevertheless, you have failed to withdraw your complaint. That leads me to believe that this is not a complaint that was made in good faith. However, I am willing to continue to discuss this with you on the talk page. So if you feel like giving up this frivolous 1RR complaint and instead talking about the content, I would be happy to do that. You know where to find me. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - user has self-reverted, and technically no violation occurred, as they only did one revert. Please continue to discuss this at the talk page, but for now no action is needed here. Snoog is encouraged to assume better faith next time and not escalate here when dialogue is ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Britishfinance, here's another instructive case that illustrates the concerns that you expressed amid the CIS sock saga. From now I'll stop coming to the edit-warring noticeboard: the last few days (the first times I've brought cases here in forever) have shown that there's just no point. The editor has added grotesquely misleading rubbish to a BLP, forced it back into the article despite reverts and objections, and has literally stated on this very board that he intends to edit-war the deceptive content into the article in the absence of consensus, yet I'm the one chastised for bringing the case to the noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * this isn't the department of pre-crime. If no breach had actually yet occurred, and dialogue was ongoing, then bringing it here was premature. Reporting things here is a last resort, not an alternative to talking over the issues and building consensus on the talk page. I'll not apologise for reminding you of that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Though it is possible that Snooganssnoogans could have worked harder on consensus before coming here, I want to point out to User:Cosmic Sans that he is expected to follow the rules stated in American politics AE if he finds himself getting into disputes on articles which carry that restriction. It is *not* a simple 1RR rule. Though Cosmic Sans only made one revert, his single revert *did* violate the 'consensus required' provision. The restriction was applied to the William Barr article on 2 May by User:El C. So Cosmic's reference to this as a 'frivolous 1RR complaint' and his suggestion of bad faith is misguided. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I'm objectively correct in stating that this was not a 1RR violation. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I should further note that when the May 2 policy was pointed out, I self-reverted. I don't understand why this issue continues to be discussed. (Or, more accurately, why this issue seems to be discussed anywhere but the talk page for the article.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Sans, if you would stop referring to this as a bad faith complaint, maybe the discussion would stop. This was a sincerely made, though possibly premature complaint of edit warring on a high profile article. Caution is advised for all parties. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand my objection here. When I said that I had only made one revert, Snoog claimed I was lying. Anyone can see that I only made one revert. To date, Snoog has not retracted his statement or admitted that he was wrong. When you pointed out the May 2 policy, I immediately complied and self-reverted. Snoog has made no such show of good faith on his end, such as rescinding his claim that I'm a liar. I'm going to respectfully bow out of this discussion for now, but surely you can see where I'm coming from on this. Nobody likes being called a liar when they are actually saying something that is true. I sincerely hope that Snoog will participate in discussions on the talk page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fargo44 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:35,09/07
 * 2) 03:28
 * 3) 12:17
 * 4) 13:11
 * 5) 13:42
 * 6) 14:34
 * 7) 19:33
 * 8) 20:42
 * 9) 21:29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019

Comments:


 * Nine reverts in the last 24 hours. I would block myself but have reverted them twice, along with four other editors. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:P0G41oxepU reported by User:Ahrtoodeetoo (Result: Already blocked for 31 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: None, clear BLP vio reverted by 3 different editors (myself as well as and.

Comments:

The article is also within scope for AP2 and BLP DS and P0G41oxepU has received the appropriate alerts. R2 (bleep) 21:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * by . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)