Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive393

User:Useddenim reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: Warned, then blocked 24 hours)
Pages:
 * ... and many others!
 * ... and many others!
 * ... and many others!
 * ... and many others!

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) Coatbridge Branch
 * 2) Whifflet Line
 * 3) Liverpool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway
 * 4) Great Eastern Main line RDT

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Not going to list all the Diffs as there's too many to list. Here they are just for Template:Coatbridge Branch (NBR):


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (not involved and no such resolution was sought by either party on any article's talk page)

Comments:

User is going around reverting changes by the IP, without any explanation whatsoever nor with any attempt to reach out to the IP. Only comment was on user's talkpage. Considering how long he has been a member of Wikipedia, he should know better (which is why I'm reporting him and not the IP). Also abusing rollback rights. I am completely uninvolved, I don't even live in and have never been to the United Kingdom. Rockstone  talk to me!   19:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This was plain and simple WP:RVV. These IP editors were—incorrectly—inserting anachronistic motorways into historical railways. Then, without bothering to examine any of the details, decided to escalate this to WP:ANI ANEW just two minutes after posting a talk-page warning. Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This still isn't WP:ANI, this is WP:ANEW; like I said earlier... Regardless, I'm posting this here to get more eyes to look at it. Don't take it personally. Rockstone   talk to me!   20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Liverpool and Manchester Railway: diagram is subtitled 1830–1845
 * Liverpool and Bury Railway: In 1846 the line merged with the Manchester & Leeds Railway
 * Liverpool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway: From May 1859, it became part of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
 * Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway: in the mid-19th century, the MSJ&AR passed to joint ownership by the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway
 * Template:Great Eastern main line RDT: showing a single road on a line that is almost 115 miles long is disproportionate and out of scale
 * I can't help it if someone doesn't do their homework first, but merely engages in drive-by editing. Useddenim (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but edits that are mistaken are still not vandalism. Vandalism is intentional and malicious, which these edits do not appear to be. For example, it's most likely the case that whoever edited Template:Liverpool_and_Manchester_Railway was not attempting to be a vandal, but misunderstood the point of the template. You should WP:AGF. And it's still arguable that noting that the motorway intersects where the railway used to be is worthwhile. Even if you are in the right that these templates shouldn't have these railway and motorways in them, you should at the very least explain your changes by providing edit summaries or reaching out to the alleged vandal. Otherwise to me, and anyone else, it looks like you're just edit warring. But let's allow one of the regulars on this page to take a look and decide what's best. --  Rockstone   talk to me!   20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If both the perpetrator and the reverter know that it's vandalism, them it should be clear-cut. Furthermore, I don't think that this is merely random "adding a correction that should be there", as these IPs chose the correct icon (out of over 7,000), then employed rather obtuse syntax to add it to the diagrams (which use two, significantly different, markups). In fact, there may ever be case for WP:SPI (except that I don't recognize this editing pattern). Useddenim (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I'm starting to understand what happened a bit more. Part of the issue is that, because the IPs did chose the correct icon and added it to the diagrams, it looked as if the IPs knew what they were doing. I apologize for escalating this to here without contacting you first. I do think in the future reverts for things that could be misconstrued as not being vandalism should have some type of summary, although I'm guilty of not doing that either (and if you hit "rollback", it won't give you one).   Rockstone   talk to me!   21:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a deficiency with WP:ROLLBACK; there should be a checkbox for RVV, and and optional edit summary field. (And the IPs also seemed quite conversant with which edit summaries to use…) Useddenim (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/ajaxrollsum.js offers another rollback link with a summary field &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  23:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, . Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Left a note on Useddemin's talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * after Useddemin ignored the warning and continued reverting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang complaint against User:Rockstone35
Pages:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  edit summary "noting 's revision"
 * 2)  edit summary "Undid revision 905744778 by Rockstone35 (talk): you changed the sense of what you wrote – if you made a mistake, own it"
 * 3)  edit summary "Undid revision 905806935 by Rockstone35 (talk): A user's talk page is their domain — you need to get their consent before modifying already-existing content there. See: Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages). (Note: not my words; see Special:Diff/894284341 by admin ElC on 21:02, 26 April 2019)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) : struck old text and added revision signature timestamp as a superscript
 * 2) : left revised text in place, added old and new versions in a  with revisions
 * 3) : added "Note: comment had been edited by Rockstone35." after the signature of his revised post

Comments:

User:Rockstone35 revised his comment which completely changed the sense of his words, without any edit summary. For whatever reason, he does not want to admit that changed his mind or made a mistake about what he originally said. This is particularly egregious as he is the one who initiated the WP:ANEW complaint int he first place. Useddenim (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to change what User:Rockstone35 had wrote, just that he had. Useddenim (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't violate WP:3RR, as I only made two reverts. One of your diffs is a revert by an admin, which you are attempting to pass off as one of my reverts, and I assume they'll take a poor view of you misrepresenting the issue here. Secondly, your diffs showing edit warring show you reverting, not me. I think a double boomerang is in order.  Rockstone   talk to me!   17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't change the fact that you are actively editing my user page against my stated wishes, especially as I have taken pains to not modify your revised text. Useddenim (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that still doesn't make it an edit war, so this is the wrong forum for discussing this, and you're still misrepresenting the facts. I really would suggest dropping this now before things get worse for you. (edit: also, there's not a 3RR warning here anyway, but that's neither here nor there. Never have I regretted making an edit to a comment as much as I do now...) -- Rockstone   talk to me!   17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, we agreed to drop this and move on. Waiting for Useddenim to strike through or delete his comments as well.  Rockstone   talk to me!   18:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to let your strikes stand, although this agreement between you and Useddenim doesn't entitle you to strike your comments, which, in fact, led to a block of Useddenim. However, Useddenim cannot delete their comments. They attempted to do a gross refactoring of this area, subtracting over 10K bytes, which I've reverted. I think the best thing to do here is for both of you to stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that I'm not allowed to strike my comments. Given that, I undid my struck comments since they do impact the readability of the page. Rockstone   talk to me!   18:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor is disruptively edit warring, ignoring the discussion, without any consensus, in an attempt to push change of the title (ignoring how are the articles titled), meaning of the term "White Croats", scope, and structure of the article which it had from the beginning. The editor is refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks because of which was also reported at noticeboard/incidents.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The two editors are also bickering at WP:ANI. Neither editor has violated 3RR at the article, although both have been edit-warring equally. I'm not taking action, but if I were to do so, I'd block them both.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I emphasize, the editor was reported because of edit warring, not 3RR. While I reverted to a WP:SILENCE revision (+bold intermediate solution with which were included references introduced by Nicoljaus), Nicoljaus was edit warring against the talk page discussion, with no consensus, in an attempt to change the things stated above, against moderator's advice . If we both get blocked, then the article cannot be kept in a revision for which there's no consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The first two edits is a partial return to the consensus version. Unlike Miki, who generally uses only full reverts, I keep his useful edits:, --Nicoljaus (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No one complied with Miki’s requests to return their version, so they continued: --Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is bold edit and partial revert as is an intermediate solution with which are included the references you wanted. Your revision does not have consensus and is against RS and other. I do not have a burden to reach a consensus, you have. On the talk page you were asked clear questions - give clear answers. If you still don't agree try RfC and DR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My refs do not contain the claim that you reinforce by using them.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * False. A complete lie. The editor for over 2 weeks ignores what's written in the RS and how are articles titled.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: – User:Miki Filigranski is blocked 48 hours. The user made an additional revert at 12:43 on 11 July while this report was still open, which seems to confirm their intention to edit war. I note that the DRN discussion ended because Miki abandoned it, not because it reached a conclusion. Because of the hostile remarks that these editors make in their discussions, as seen for example in the DRN, I'm alerting both Miki and Nicoljaus to the WP:ARBEE sanctions. Each of these editors has been blocked enough times they should be trying hard to use RfCs and wait for the outcome. If they continue to fail at WP:Dispute resolution, an administrator could ban them from the topic of the White Croats under the Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 905860922 by SharabSalam (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905859386 by SharabSalam (talk) too far, no consensus to remove, don't edit war"
 * 3)  "/* Health concerns */describe RT America as 'a network known for sowing disinformation' per main source, while RfC is ongoing, maybe this will quell the edit warring"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905741735 by 12.25.160.29 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* You are in your third revert */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* You are in your third revert */ tweak"


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


 * Comments:

There is a RfC whether this paragraph should be included or not. The user sent me a template notifying me that the article is under sanction 1r yet he has made 4 reverts in the article.-- SharabSalam (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't know how SharabSalam got the idea that this article was under a 1RR restriction; as far as I know it's not, and I never said anything to that effect. Further, I didn't violate 3RR either. R2 (bleep) 23:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not? Then why did you sent me that template?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Both editors blocked: Ahrtoodeetoo for 24 hours and SharabSalm for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Superbrickbro reported by User:Paisarepa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Superbrickbro added a link to a disambiguation page that is not to an article (an external link), and is of a topic that does not have an existing article. The addition of the link has been reverted six times by four different editors. Superbrickbro's response has been to attack at least one of the editors personally (responded You are stupid! to the warning they posted on his talk page) and wrote on my talk page ''...Please do not delete Vidya Shankar from the page because every time you or anybody else deletes Vidya Shankar, you are vandalizing the page. Vidya Shankar can be there and isn't being a virus to the page. Stop deleting Vidya Shankar or I will report you and everyone else as vandalizers...'' (full quote can be found on my talk page or Superbrickbro's). No three reversions were within a 24 hour period (they occurred on July 5th, 8th, 10th, and twice on the 11th), but I believe they are a violation of the spirit of the rule if not the word of it. Further, the personal attack on another editor, and his response on my talk page (and similar responses on other editors' talk pages) make me confident the reversions will continue. Paisarepa (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:1 Blue Monkey reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Both blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 905940495 by Newimpartial (talk) No, you stop the POV crusade of yours because you disagree with the content - at least I provide sources and facts, you are not.."
 * 2)  "Reattached original source, rest remains removed as it is violating TOS & guidelines."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 905940043 by Newimpartial (talk) Read TOS and edit guidelines and stop putting lies into the article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905940157 by Newimpartial (talk) Removal was explained, read edit - to clarify more, no source was given and wording is violating TOS and edit guidelines."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 905939876 by Newimpartial (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 905939654 by Newimpartial (talk) Then put in an alternative wording instead of reverting, anyways YOU are POV crusading as you deny facts and put in lies into this article."
 * 7)  "/* Sexual violence */ Formulated in a not objective way, corrected. Violating TOS of Wikipedia and edit guidelines."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 905922501 by Equivamp (talk) - "assign" suggests that medical stuff randomly chose your gender, which is not done ; what I added is absolutely correct and important in the context of the topic - for the rest a scientific source was provided, you just ignore it because you don't like this  - thereby change will be undone"
 * 1)  "/* Sexual violence */ Formulated in a not objective way, corrected. Violating TOS of Wikipedia and edit guidelines."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905922501 by Equivamp (talk) - "assign" suggests that medical stuff randomly chose your gender, which is not done ; what I added is absolutely correct and important in the context of the topic - for the rest a scientific source was provided, you just ignore it because you don't like this  - thereby change will be undone"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:

User is reverting to insist on their own Bold edits in a long standing wording (discussed at RfC), refuses to engage on the Talk page, and insists on their own POV against the balance of reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * POV pushing noted. Discussion started on talk page by other party. Not joined. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . This is just ridiculous. I count 9 reverts by one and 7 by the other, all within the past two hours, before anyone even tried to take it to the talk page. In retrospect I should have made both blocks longer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ramcdaniel1 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again removed unverified statements, inaccurate, unverified and slanderous material. Dubious sources from not credible organizations abound in this heavily biased and inaccurate Wikipedia bio."
 * 2)  "Again removed unverified statements, inaccurate and slanderous material."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 905902829 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 905896313 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 5)  "Removed unverified statements, inaccurate and slanderous material."


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


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


 * Comments:

Refuses to discuss anything, has made zero talk page posts despite entreaties on their talk page... nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring at Robert B. Spencer and ACT! for America.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:174.102.161.185 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * This was the point he received a 3RR warning
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Editor was blocked for 48 hours by in May for the edit warring on the IB on the same page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:101.98.126.25 reported by User:Bensci54 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

I didn't look at the IP's contribution history in any detail until now, but they're indulging in the same kind of behavior at more pages than just Bogdanov affair. They also removed a note I left cautioning them about their conduct (I made it as polite as possible). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not intuitive or useful"
 * 2)  "also not intuitive. in fact, obviously absurd. where does a reader expect to go when clicking on "reflection among physicists"? There is no clear expectation, and ending up slightly further down the same page is not in any way useful."
 * 3)  "It does not aid navigation in any possible sense. Everybody (except possibly you) knows that the lead is a summary of the article, and more information about every part of the lead will be found below"
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A sampling of their edit summaries:


 * 1) "removed useless links and bullshit" &mdash; vulgar, also misleading (interlanguage links are explicitly noted as useful in the documentation)
 * 2) You selectively quoted me. I said removed useless links and bullshit about "care and thought", referring to substandard text which you had restored without explanation.
 * 3) The full edit summary is still vulgar and misleading. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) "The mind boggles that you don't grasp this" &mdash; insulting, confrontational
 * 5) "don't put useless rubbish back unchanged" &mdash; confrontational (and the "useless rubbish" was a list of titles that, at worst, needed a few words of lead-in)
 * 6) "lifting an exact sequence of words from a non-free source, punctuation and all, violates all the fundamental standards of this encyclopaedia" &mdash; misleading (checking against the source shows a close paraphrase, perhaps too close for best practice, but not "punctuation and all", and for all their complaining, their edit just changed the sentence from one close paraphrase to another)
 * 7) had “spoofed” their PhD theses appeared in the source. Exactly the same text, punctuation and all, appeared in the article. Nothing misleading about that.
 * 8) "someone clearly didn't understand paragraphs" &mdash; confrontational
 * 9) Jocular.
 * 10) "text cannot be copied and pasted and presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia" &mdash; misleading (the text in question was safely within quotation marks, and after the edit, the text "a firm dry crust and a softer center" is reproduced verbatim from the source, apart from Americanizing the spelling, thereby making it more plagiaristic than it was before)
 * 11) "safely within quotation marks"?? That is the point. It was presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia, despite being copied and pasted from elsewhere. You can't make that "safe" by putting quotation marks around it. And you're saying that when I changed the text that had been copied and pasted, I somehow changed it into a verbatim quote??
 * 12) You kept a verbatim quote while removing any indication that it was a verbatim quote, after complaining (unclearly) about a shorter sequence of words in a different article, which you "fixed" by changing one word in a lengthy sentence of close paraphrasing. By your own standards, you're harming the encyclop&aelig;dia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) "the commons exists for arbitrary collections of images" &mdash; confrontational (and seemingly opposed to the idea of image galleries entirely)
 * 14) Not confrontational. WP:GALLERY says exactly that. 101.98.126.25 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Even a verbatim quote from policy can be confrontational if used aggressively and inappropriately, as (I would argue) you did there, by removing a gallery of images of pastries named in that very article. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about collecting images of things that the article itself names two paragraphs before. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, they're here to complain. I don't know if this noticeboard is actually the right venue, but I can only imagine that they will keep trying to impose their own idiosyncracies as ironclad rules, being abrasive and insulting all the while, until someone stops them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of Alraigo incident, I think is the same editor. They have the same attitude regarding "the voice of the encyclopedia" (regarding, again, quotations) and what "should be obvious to every editor". Possibly also , who has already been cautioned once to read WP:CIVIL. I don't think this is sockpuppetry; there doesn't appear to be the intent to make one editor look like many. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, they're here to complain - no, I'm here to improve the encyclopaedia. Look at the list you've just posted; you think it's me who's here to complain? 101.98.126.25 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it this guy? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be; they do appear to have a similar attitude and mode of operation. Objecting to claims of "uniqueness" sounds a lot like objecting to "best known for" . It looks like they've been warned about edit warring and/or incivility by at least three people other than me . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Objecting to claims of "uniqueness" sounds a lot like objecting to "best known for" - I mean, what?? I can't even unravel any nugget of sense from within that, or really this whole situation, arising from someone putting German language links into an English language article. Now how about dropping this ridiculous charade and getting on with improving the encyclopaedia like we're all supposed to be here for. I won't respond to anything else this user says or does from now on. 101.98.126.25 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's the wind-up.... and there's the flounce! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I filed this report, I had misunderstood the rules for 3RR, that consecutive reverts only count as one; hence the no violation ruling. However, the IP has made a third revert now, so how do I get this reopened? Bensci54 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply; I'm in the narrow interval between my returning from travel and coworkers leaving, so it's a harried week. Since the dispute appears to be about confrontational behavior more broadly than just edit warring sensu stricto, perhaps WP:ANI is the appropriate venue. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also this edit by yet another IP, which violates WP:BRD. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Muhali (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

The lead section of The Economic Consequences of the Peace claims that US opposition to joining the League of Nations and British support for the appeasement of Hitler was strongly influenced by the book. Given the importance, I thought that a source was in place,, and added the citation-needed tag. This was reverted by BMK without comment. I re-reverted, demanding further justification, to which BMK responded with another revert arguing that a lead does not require sources when it is sourced in the body. Because both points were not even raised in the body, I requested the source again multiple times on the user and article talk pages, and asked for further discussion to avoid an edit war. No reaction. When I inserted the citation tags again, it was again reverted.

I can live with this. I have more trouble dealing with the way how BMK is behaving here (and elsewhere). Apparently, he is editing on numerous fronts, where his restrictive, unresponsive behavior may be useful given the heated circumstances. But there are normal people out there, newcomers, amateurs, who have no other agenda than to help improving WP. They are much needed, but they are turned away if their actions are policed in such a way. -Muhali (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * please desist from tagbombing the lead. Thank you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Beethoven reported by User:Hispalois (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked Beethoven to "please provide arguments in Talk page" but he/she did not. At the second revert, I proposed him/her to "If you disagree with the lead, focus on that but do not revert all recent edits."; again unsuccessfully.

Comments:

I'm sorry, but I didn't revert your edits three times. I only reverted you one time.


 * 1) : I restored the original version, after a dispute on controversial edits between you and other users.
 * 2) : I reverted you one time, since you insisted on imposing your version.
 * 3) : You said that you agreed on respecting the lead, yet at the same time you proceeded to revert me without respecting that lead. Meanwhile, on my edit I didn't revert your edits, since I respected your edits that hadn't been contested by other users. I focused on the lead.

In this same period of time you have made 4 different reverts to different users, without providing arguments or even discussing in Talk page. Some of your controversial edits have already been reverted by different users in the last months, like this edit (reverted in January by another user), yet you still insisted on adding them. Another example. Please discuss your intentions on Talk page. But I feel we can find an easy solution. I already focused on the lead, adding some of your contributions (languages section no longer distinguishes between majority languages) and restoring it to the original version of months ago. You can feel free to add more information on the rest of the article, but please try not to do so by removing parts that have been accepted by the users in the past --Beethoven (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You did revert three times (the last a partial revert), but even the three were not in a 24-hour period, and is equally guilty. .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Matt_Smith reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Static version

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

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

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

Comments:

User Matt Smith has had previous issues edit-warring in Taiwan, as per his block log, with Ed Johnston noting in the edit summary: "Edit warring: Long term warring about the political status of Taiwan and failure to edit neutrally. This dispute was at WP:AN3. See your talk page" The bit that the user keeps adding in is a bit contesting Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation. This is the same sort of thing that got Matt blocked for edit-warring last time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User warned: e - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope. Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus first, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I admit it: I forced the user to revert in a disingenuous opinion about Taiwan's lack of sovereignty claim not once but three times. I also used a time machine to go back and secretly provoke the user to get into other edit-wars (as evidenced by his user talk page) about - you guessed it - Taiwan. And my crowning achievement was to use the aforementioned time machine to go back in time to 2017 and coordinate events that would result Mat Smith into getting blocked over edit-warring in the Taiwan article. Yep.
 * Perhaps, we should also consider a topic-ban on Taiwan-related material for the user, since they seem to have trouble playing well with others in matters concerning Taiwan. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please do not secretly insert your own POV (a disingenuous opinion about Taiwan's lack of sovereignty claim) at here.
 * Bringing up my past log of block also cannot rationalize your violating policy WP:Consensus, not to mention that the block was problematic (in my opinion). --Matt Smith (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that a check of my edits over the past two years won't really show any pov regarding Taiwan. Can you say the same? And you say that you felt your previous block was "problematic"? Shocking; I've never heard that before.
 * Its probably best to let the good folk here do their evaluation thing. You've said your piece, now hush . - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your edits on the article pretty much showed your POV.
 * Posting your comments while telling other to hush is not a good manner, in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you seem offended by that, I have stricken the phrase. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG. The version that Matt Smith restored has, for the most part, existed for many years.  Jack Sebastian has seen it before without dispute.  Only recently did it become an issue.  Jack was the initial bold edit, with User:Dentren being the initial revert.  In all, Matt Smith has 3 total reverts (all w/in 24 hrs) while Jack Sebastian has 4 total reverts (3 w/in 24 hrs).  If anyone is warring, it's Jack.  Jack's "static version" is actually one that he recently created on 2 July and I find that to be a pretty bold lie.--v/r - TP 13:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, that appears to be correct. As I noted on Mat Smith's talk page, the substantial portion of my edits on the rump state page were to remove unsourced entries; checking sources that appeared to be neutral were left alone for the time being. I later started honing in on bad sourcing issues, such as removing maps being used as sources. Then I started looking at sources themselves, which included the listing of Taiwan - all alone - as disputed. Every other instance of a rump state was uncontested.
 * At the risk of making an edit-warring complain turn into a content argument, I'd point out that the two sources provided were both weakly in favor of delegitimizing Taiwan's claim of sovereignty. I had not noticed it before, and presumed it had been recently added. I was in place at least as far back as December, listed under a section called "controversy". When User: Matt Smith - a person blocked for problematic edits in 2007 regarding Taiwan started revert-warring, I grew concerned. Looking at his contributions, it seems like Taiwan-related articles are where the user gets into the most trouble. After warning them, they kept reverting, and so I felt compelled to report the problem here as part of a clear pattern of pov editing over a long period of time.
 * It is not my intent to edit-war in a preferred version of the article, but instead to keep the article neutral. By listing a disputed claim in an article about absolutes, I felt we were taking a side in the Taiwanese sovereignty argument. When an editor, previously blocked for edit-warring in Taiwan-related articles, shows up and starts reverting, I began to worry. I did not want the article to turn into a nationalist flame war, as happens elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please continue discussion on the talk page, and use the dispute resolution processes as required. Prodego talk 16:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:Matt Smith (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: static version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 2 3

Comments:

Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus first, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have heard the saying that a good defense is an effective offense, but I'd not seen it in action until today. Wow. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that, you are the very person who is trying to remove a long-time content without getting a consensus first. In other words, you are violating Wikipedia's policy WP:Consensus. And that's inappropriate. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not here to argue content, apart from noting that adding it to an article about rump states is seen as demeaning to a sovereign state, esp. when the sovereign state is kindy sensitive about being called the property of another state.
 * The reason you are here is because you chose to edit war - again - instead of using the discussion page. Its' called collaborative editing for a reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is not the place to discuss the editing of the article or insert your own POV (demeaning to a sovereign state).
 * What I did to the article is restoring the long-time content, which you kept removing without getting a consensus first. It's you who should have used the discussion page to get a consensus first. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Because you have no particular history of editing problems where Taiwan is concerned, right? You were reported here because topics concerning Taiwan and its sovereignty are pretty much the source of most of your problems in the past (and present, if your talk page is any evidence). The fact that you reported me immediately after I reported you means you do not see your problem here, and I think you need to recognize and address this, or you are going to end up topic-banned from articles regarding Taiwan. I'd prefer that didn't happen.
 * I am going to stop talking now. I recognize that I reverted three times, but - as you thoughtfully pointed out - using the term 'rump state' for a sovereign nation is in fact demeaning, I'd like to avoid some nationalist scuffle from developing because of your issues with Taiwan. At no point did I fail to discuss my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping bring up my edit history rather than focusing on the topic can possible show that your edits in this case are untenable. Again, please stop defaming me while you refuse to admit that you failed to follow WP:Consensus.
 * You did not fail to discuss, but you failed to desist from keeping doing what you think is right to the article before you, User:Dentren, and I obtain any consensus in the discussion. Please understand that. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I keep bringing up your edit history regarding Taiwan because it is rife with your nationalist beliefs, and they color your edits and cause you to have problems with others. I mean, you decided to post in retaliation eight minutes after I post your complaint, where all you were concerned about was yourself, and not the potential harm you were doing to the article or the intellectual dishonesty in seeking to disparage Taiwan's sovereignty. I am an outsider in this nationalist discussion, which makes it easy to see when someone is trying to reframe how someone sees a topic. You aren't stupid, Matt - you know that you are doing this. Your talk page supports that you are doing this. Your block log shows that you are doing this. You are a reunification fan; we get it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you haven't realized, through out your edits and the discussion in this case you are holding a strong POV: Taiwan is a sovereign state. Apparently, you didn't participate in the discussion in the Taiwan article's talk page. Editors in the discussion understood that it's controversial to assert that Taiwan is a sovereign stat, and that's why the consensus was that the Taiwan article describes Taiwan as a "state" rather than a "sovereign state".
 * I reported you at here correspondingly because I did not expect that you as the very policy violator would take the initiate to report me with false accusation and I had to expose you, regrettably.
 * You can keep shifting the focus by bring up my edit or block history, but that cannot change the fact that you did not follow the policy and disruptively removed content before we three editors (you, User:Dentren, and I) come into a consensus in the talk page.
 * Last but not least, you guessed incorrectly. I'm NOT a Chinese reunification fan. In fact, I oppose that. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Matt Smith in that Jack Sebastian is having a problematic behavior. I have no stake in the issue (usually don´t edit on PRC/ROC issues) and while I was restoring sourced content (deleted by Jack Sebastian) he came upp with allegations of the content representing a political agenda.
 * Jack himself states the removal politically motivated: "any argument that seeks to de-legitimize the ROC as an independent state - contrary to all evidence otherwise - is almost certainly politically motivated by (and likely funded by) the PRC, we can't put a lot of weight on that, as per a very narrow interpretation of WP:UNDUE. With sources equally opposed and in favor of delegitimizing the ROC, calling it a rump state here is in fact playing favorites, and we aren't going to so that. At all." . As far as I know no editor here has been seeking to challenge the legitimacy of ROC/Taiwan, and even if it were narratives related to the legitimacy are allowed in Wikipedia (see for example Legitimacy of Israel). – Dentren  |  Ta lk  11:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no horse in the Taiwanese Sovereignty Question. The article is about unanimously-agreed upon rump states. As even a cursory glance notes that its sovereignty is disputed by only a single country, it seemed imprudent to note Taiwan, as giving the PRC undue weight to its claim. When a single source - easily and overwhelmingly countered argument is presented to legitimize the idea of a rump state, something is wrong. When an editor with problematic edits regarding Taiwan-related articles shows up and starts reverting, Yeah - that's a problem.
 * I brought Ed Johnston - the admin who had blocked Matt Smith for his edit-warring in Taiwan-related related article - into the loop with my concerns. I tried everything I could to de-escalate the situation, including discussing the matter on both Matt's talk page and in article discussion. I was determined to prevent damaging info from being in the article, similar to how we treat biographies.
 * Lastly, I would point out that those three instances where Matt Smith noted where he "tried to resolve the dispute" were talk page posts he made after reverting, and none of those posts sought to do anything but reinforce their pov. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If what you said about Taiwanese sovereignty is true, the Taiwan article would have already described Taiwan as a sovereignty state. Obviously, this issue isn't how you think it is.
 * And I find that you really like to mention my past block, as if you believe doing that can help rationalize your behavior in this case. I would like to inform you that, I have been reasonable on the Chinese Wikipedia (except for when I was a newbie and needed others to teach me the policies) and have never been blocked at there. My past block at here (English Wikipedia) was, in my opinion, resulted from a misunderstanding and someone's instigation.
 * Those three talk pages posts where I noted where I "tried to resolve the dispute" clearly explained to you that there is a reliable source countering the POV you mentioned (Taiwan meets every single criteria of being an independent country), and that you should not have removed the content before we obtain a consensus. It's incredible that you say "none of those posts sought to do anything but reinforce their pov". --Matt Smith (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please continue discussion on the talk page, and use the dispute resolution processes as required. Prodego talk 16:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:‎DavidManchester44 reported by User:Rowan Forest (Result: 48 hours)
This single-purpose user keeps reverting referenced material regarding the landing site. He leaves the original references but writes opposing info (and with a capital letter).

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) (Instead of replying in the talk page, his summary was: "Haha i am loving this")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. El_C 17:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But he is avoiding the block, now as User:ManchesterDawah: diff: Rowan Forest (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:WolfHook (Result: No violation)

 * Page: Immigration and crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
 * Attempt by WolfHook to engage revision edits diplomatically on Snoog's talk page. Titled, "July 2019": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans

1. ‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=905217144&oldid=904620876 2. (note same date as Wolfhook contribution) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=905219091&oldid=905217144 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=906208452&oldid=905258641 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=906214471&oldid=906208452
 * Edit history:
 * Original version submitted by WolfHook
 * Snooganssnoogans undo:
 * Wolfhook undo:
 * Snooganssnoogans undo again:

User:Snooganssnoogans has a very long history of removing edits he or she finds offensive and has been reported numerous times, especially for violation of wikipedia's no censorship policy. They have been warned several times by wikipedia's administrators for violations. The text in question is sourced with both government (.gov) and educational (.edu) references, and is completely academically legitimate. This however is problematic for Snoog. WolfHook (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see only 2 reverts by Snooganssnoogans. And discussion about editing disputes should take place on the article talk page, so that other interested editors can join in, not on either editors' user talk page, as if it was a private matter.  Finally, "July 2019" is the type of title one gives to a talk page section in which one has warned a vandal, it's not the kind of title one gives to begin a friendly discussion.This non-admin would suggest that Wolfhook withdraw this report and return to the article talk page and try to reach some kind of compromise with Snooganssnoogans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DusanSilniVujovic reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906009941 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) official FINA's medal table"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 905966833 by Pelmeen10 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Medal table */"
 * 1)  "/* Medal table */"
 * 1)  "/* Medal table */"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has gone ahead and reverted multiple edits to their preferred version (please also see this revert which was after the warning and after I had tagged the user to discuss and come to a consensus. I do not think this is possible if this user is just going to revert and not discuss. Some of their actions do fall outside the 24hrs and some are across multiple pages, but its clear edit warring is the intent here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already tried discussing at Talk:Water polo at the World Aquatics Championships, it does not work. User just continues with the same sentence. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're not quite at an EW block yet. But, you could probably make a strong argument for CIR.--v/r - TP 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * They don't have strong argument. I'm so sorry for this mess, but I told to Pelmeen10 that on FINA official site in there table all medals belong to SERBIA, like in any other sports. This is my prove (page 14, 15,..). All this years we didn't have a problem with medals on Water polo pages, but now, we have. THIS IS OFFICIAL!

In FINA document say this:

FINA WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS 1973-2017

ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY

All titles (16) have been won by European teams: '5' titles YUG / SCG / SRB (1986,1991, 2005, 2009, 2015) 3 titles ITA (1978, 1994, 2011) HUN (1973, 2003, 2013) 2 titles URS (1975, 1982) ESP (1998, 2002) CRO (2007, 2017) See, say 5 titles for YUG / SCG / SRB and not split (5). Next

WATER POLO WORLD CUP

ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY 5 titles YUG/SCG/SRB (1987, 1989, 2006, 2010, 2014) 3 titles HUN (1979, 1995, 1999) URS (1981, 1983) + RUS(2002) 2 titles USA (1991, 1997) 1 title FRG (1985) 1 title ITA (1993)

OLYMPIC GAMES

OLYMPIC GAMES ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY All titles

9 titles HUN (1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1976, 2000, 2004, 2008) 4 titles GBR (1900, 1908, 1912, 1920) YUG (1968, 1984, 1988,/SRB (2016) ITA (1948, 1960, 1992) 2 titles URS (1972, 1980) 1 title FRA (1924) GER (1928) ESP (1996) CRO (2012) I think that we must putt YUG/SCG/SER togteher like this. Like it say ROLL OF HONOUR BY COUNTRY Also, wrote this from Croatia Olympic Commitet. They say that all medals before 1988 belong to Serbia. DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And whatch this table from Pelmeer10 (i think)

I need an explanation for this nonsense?!? DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

. The best thing to do is to observe the bold, revert, discuss, cycle and to not edit war. El_C 16:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but i don't have a good comunication with Pelmeer10 because he always do what they what. This is my work - all explanation's i note's for water polo championship

Medal table
The medal table below lists the national teams according to the respective table published by FINA.

DusanSilniVujovic (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:74.110.172.76 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906274198 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906273278 by 99.53.112.186 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906272904 by Cullen328 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * . Clear reverts @ 20:11, 20:17, 20:18 and warned about edit warring @ 20:13. Note this is not a 3RR block, just the usual edit-warring block for what appears to be an unsourced political position rapidly reverted into an article. Kuru   (talk)  22:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:15 reported by User:VictorTorres2002 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906331322 by VictorTorres2002 (talk) This guy Sacred keeps thinking theres a release daye"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906331105 by VictorTorres2002 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906330596 by SacredDragonX (talk) Wrong"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 906330339 by SacredDragonX (talk) I’m trying to help you out here brotha, the trailer never said a release date along with their social media pages. Plus why are you stalking me?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 906330093 by SacredDragonX (talk) Refs can be wrong man."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 906329800 by SacredDragonX (talk) Ref can be wrong no official release date was given."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 906327960 by SacredDragonX (talk) Nowhere it says that release date"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 906266840 by SacredDragonX (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jumanji: The Next Level. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User rapidly removes the template on the infobox. Then the user engages in edit warring. The user has also violated the three-revert rule, indicating he is engaging in an edit war. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:3::/64. IP is using a /64 range and it is dynamically changing. Doing same on other IPs used in range. If blocked a range block should be done, blocking just a single IP is unlikely to accomplish much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 month I looked through the contributions and I don't see a need for a /64. But I went ahead and did a /96.  Special:Contributions/2600:387:A:3::/96  That should catch all addresses that he's used.--v/r - TP 11:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat reported by User:Penguin7812 (Result: Both warned)
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:

This is hilarious as I was the one who warned Penguin of his behavior and twice on his talk page. So WP:BOOMERANG definitely applies here as he has exceeded 3RR (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4). It should also be noted that diff1 is a continuation of Penguins edit warring at Template:Thor family tree, where he has previously announced his attention to continue edit warring (“If you can't or won't give me the reason, then I will edit the template again”). —TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are both edit-warring with the same number of reverts in a 24-hour window. You are therefore both against further edits at the article. Use the article talk page to resolve your dispute or, if that fails, other methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MorningSunBright and User:58.182.226.98 reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: MorningSunBright and the IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A: Neither person has attempted to resolve the edit war on the talkpage.

Comments:

User created account and immediately started edit warring with the IP. Doesn't seem to understand the difference between vandalism and bad edits. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

keeps deleting information in the article pertaining to the number of ethnic Chinese in India. I told him if he thought the source needed improvement to add a tag such as or. But, I told him that just removing and deleting information from the article is inappropriate, and that he should refrain from such editing. I am trying to maintain the original information in the article, before such disruptive edits were made. -User:MorningSunBright

Also, I'm almost certain that and  are the same individual. -User:MorningSunBright —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to do an WP:SPI SPI request, then. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaipau reported by User:সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (Result: filer indeffed as sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user is removing content by telling it Unreliable sourced and promotion, but there nothing product/good to promote, even he removed government-related news source by telling it a tourism promotion. Also, some references were added by him, but when I tried to improve the content from the sources that included by him; he removed it as Unreliable Source of Hazarika 2014. He is doing this not only with Ahom related pages but also with some other editors too. I think he thought Wikipedia as his private property!! সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া is a sockpuppet of User:Sairg and has been blocked indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:177.98.167.93 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Ranges blocked for 1 year)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Anonymous editor with similar range IP addresses keeps removing categories labeling Videla as a fascist. (so there are other similar edits/reversal by similar address) I have used the edit summary and brought up a discussion in the Talk page. The editor does not have consensus. I was not the one to label him a fascist, but sources provided in the Talk page plus a review of WP's article on fascism match. MartinezMD (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This editor is on ranges Special:Contributions/177.98.160.0/19 and Special:Contributions/177.98.192.0/19. He has been warned for edit warring and disruptive editing many many times, and blocked at least once. I have placed a 1-year block on both ranges (this one editor is responsible for almost every edit on those ranges). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:210.55.232.218 reported by User:Almy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""last good version" don't insult me"
 * 2)  "Pointlessly disruptive revert, obviously not in good faith. Restored my fully justified edit"
 * 3)  "/* Hypotheses on the signal's origin */I think not mentioning fraudulent garbage at all is a better approach, but if you really want it in, then cite the secondary sources and give it due weight"
 * 4)  "/* Hypotheses on the signal's origin */ this claim was complete nonsense by a clueless self-promoter with absolutely no scientific credentials. not a significant aspect of the topic at all."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

A warning was given to him was but he deleted it and told the editor to go away. Almy (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an edit; somebody disagreed with it; I made a different edit seeking to reflect their concerns and mine. Two unrelated editors have now reverted for no clear reason. One also requested page protection! This user has made a false claim about 3RR - it has not been violated - and also misused their rollback tool to undo my edit. They have not contributed at all to the talk page discussion. 210.55.232.218 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My use of the rollback tool was justified, as noted on my talk page. He has also reverted the page 3+ times in the last 24 hours, which is a clear violation of the 3RR. Almy (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. 210.55.232.218 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * . Sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Article protected. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:SpoonLuv reported by User:Cloudjpk (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=906564555&oldid=906564279 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=906564555&oldid=906564279

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

El_C 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Applella reported by User:Sauzer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Li Lu Lin Yao Yang

Diffs of the user's reverts: Not all pages are in excess of 3RR, but user has given ample indication they will continue to revert to push their POV (see below).
 * 1) Partial blanking of Li (surname 李)
 * 2) Partial blanking of Lu (surname 陸)
 * 3) Partial blanking of Lin (surname)
 * 4) Partial blanking of Yao (surname)
 * 5) Partial blanking of Yang (surname)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Two reversions were made after this warning was issued.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple warnings/explanations of the issue on user talk

Comments:

User:Applella explains here their Chinese nationalist reasoning for blanking the contents. Further explanation of this kind is in many of the edit summaries. Please note that immediately prior to this user's edits, identical blanking was performed by IP to the same articles. It seems likely to me that Applella and the IP are the same user. Sauzer (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After submitting the report, I noticed identical blanking behavior at Lui (surname), . Sauzer (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Hhggtg3279 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked + 1)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Read your sources please ppl stop removing accurate info"
 * 2)  "Sources https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://variety.com/2017/film/news/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-opening-thursday-1202489202/"
 * 3)  "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false"
 * 1)  "Sources https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://variety.com/2017/film/news/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-opening-thursday-1202489202/"
 * 2)  "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false"
 * 1)  "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WJ2cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Spider-Man: Homecoming. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2019 */ Re:"
 * 3)   "/* July 2019 */ Re:"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Zendaya's character's name */ cmt"

In addition to edit-warring after coming off a recent block, the editor has exhibited behavior that is verging on WP:IDHT territory. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I blocked Hhggtg3279 for one week, partly for making 14 reverts, partly for removing this report, and partly for their stated attitude that they won't stop. I've also blocked for 24 hours for making 11 reverts. I don't see how I could ignore that, even though the editor was not reported. Of course, the edit war is over something absolutely crucial to the well-being of the world, whether one of the characters in the film is named Michelle or Michelle Jones.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you now blocked the user indefinitely for admitting to sock puppetry... -- Rockstone  talk to me!   01:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Moses102 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906609912 by Ronz (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906593213 by Aquillion (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906593213 by Aquillion (talk)"
 * 4)  "I corrected inaccuracies. Heterodox Academy is a 501c3 non-profit, and is comprised of administrators and students as well as professors. I also updated what they do. For instance, their Guide to Colleges is no longer in existence."
 * 5)  "I changed the description of the organization to a more neutral one. Heterodox Academy is a 501c3; it is best described as a non-profit organization. The previous sources cited to describe the organization in this section were explicitly negative. This suggests that this language was put together by someone with a negative view of the organization, who was hoping to reinforce that view."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* /* Discretionary sanctions notification */ */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* /* ew- please respond */ */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Description in the lead. */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* History expansion */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* /* ‎Primary sources: */ */ new section"


 * Comments:

This does not appear to actually be a new user; they knew how to use citation tags, and leapt straight into a revert-war. Both this and a related article, Jonathan Haidt, have seen similar editing from WP:SPAs in the past, eg. User:Ethical user nyc and User:Corianna, with a very similar pattern (heavy focus on primary sources, promotional tone, no willingness to discuss outside article space.) -- Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Response This is literally my first foray into Wikipedia. And I don't know if its for me, to be honest. I did not leap into a 'revert war.' Every change I made to the page I was editing was immediately undone on poor grounds by this user who seems to have an axe to grind against the organization (Heterodox Academy), and has falsely characterized my edits, which merely provide additional context and a more neutral tone -- relying primarily on outside sources -- as promotional in nature.

Meanwhile, many of the sources used to describe the organization, described by Aquillon as "independent" were uniformly critical. For instance, in the initial lead section, Heterodox Academy was described as an "advocacy organization" rather than a "non-profit" (they are a 501c3) with a mission statement that was culled from a series of three articles, all of them explicitly critical of the organization. This is not a neutral or balanced view.

In a section towards the end, describing a dispute with a Vox writer, the article exclusively relied on that Vox writer and his interpretation of the dispute. How this is an 'independent' source is perplexing -- it cites one, and only one, of the partisans of the conflict, and does not include the rejoinder written after.

Many views are falsely attributed to Heterodox Academy as an organization in the article, for instance, that there is a free speech "crisis" on campus. The organization has never made such a claim. Efforts to clarify specific people within the organization who have made this claim, and to provide additional context on the dispute, were flagged as 'partisan' for some reason. In all cases, the edits merely provided balance. Links to Heterodox Academy were used only when there were not other strong sources, such describing things which have received little press to link to (such as the podcast, Campus Expression Survey or HxDisciplines).

I suspect that the user, Aquillon, is simply hostile to the organization. This perception is reinforced based on the description above. It seems (s)he has also been engaged on other pages related to Jon Haidt and his initiatives (such as ethical systems). It seems this user has some kind of axe to grind against Haidt and his related efforts. I encourage moderators to review my changes. They are neutral and non-promotional. I have no ties with the organization, I am merely interested in presenting a more complete and accurate picture than is currently presented on the site. If I knew how to report Aquillon, I would have already done so. Will look into. --Moses102 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Moses102 has made four reverts on 16 July, and now qualifies for a 3RR block. They might be able to avoid this result if they will agree to wait for consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I urge moderators to review the logs. User: Aquillon over-wrote my suggestions enough times to qualify for the same. Apparently being more saavy with Wikipedia, he did not press the 'undo' button to do this, but rather registered them as new edits, albeit restoring his original preferred language. This is a violation of the spirit of the rule, and it is what prompted me to press 'undo' more than three times. User: Aquillon is violating the rules via loopholes, cancelling edits by others (via over-writes rather than reverts) in order to keep a very particular narrative of the group on the page. Moses102 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user continued to revert at 00:47 on 17th July while this report was already open. Their response to the complaint makes clear they don't intend to follow the edit warring policy. See WP:3RRNO for the only grounds on which reverts won't be counted. Aquillion did not break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DusanSilniVujovic reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Many reverts already before that.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See also previous discussion @

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - me showing how the user is mispresenting the source.

Comments: Not sure what to do next. I'm really not interested in continuing this edit war. So far I've acted like it's disruptive editing (every once in a while a Serbian user comes claiming they own Yugoslavia's medals, e.g User:Gagibgd and User:Bozalegenda, both were blocked). Maybe Rfc - though we've already had those before? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:114.23.219.132 reported by User:Aliiqve (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Anonymous user has repeated listed Mike Gravel as having more than one poll with at least 1% support in spite of several explanations from other users (in edit descriptions and the talk page) that these polls don't count towards debate qualification and thus shouldn't be counted on a list showing whether a candidate has qualified for a debate.
 * As there was no prior notice on their talk page, I have warned the user to stop edit warring rather than blocking them. If they continue to edit disruptively, then they will be blocked. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:ThePeerageEditor reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit war seems to be continuing using IP accounts, but following the same pattern.
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . There was also a request at RFPP and I protected the page before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:11S117 reported by User:Levivich (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906835026 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906830774 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906834732 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 906834590 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 906722655 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 906743741 by InedibleHulk (talk) This guy should be banned from wiki because of his racism."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 906698244 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 906696764 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906743741 by InedibleHulk (talk) This guy should be banned from wiki because of his racism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906698244 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906696764 by Simonm223 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906696764 by Simonm223 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of terrorist incidents in July 2019. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2019
 * 2) Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2019

Editor is not responding on the article talk page or on their user talk page. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I made several attempts to engage this editor and discuss their rationale for reversion. They have refused to communicate with me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I got a virtual Thank You for taking the time to emphasize how he, in particular, is obscenely stupid and dishonest. That kind of says it all, I think. No point pestering a stupid or dishonest person for clarification on the precise nature of their sick pleasure and/or major malfunction. I can explain my "racist quote"; I was quoting a racist. Hypothetical racist, even, but a collage of real racists. Is it a crime to draw inspiration from racists who sometimes go years between anything to do with it? If so, I'll understand. But don't expect me to thank you for it. That's too subversive, even by my truly disturbing sense of good-natured humorous justice. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:93.138.31.185 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Nationalistic edit-warring over the origins of neckties, with a bunch of content blanking too. When this is with edit summaries like "do not write stupidity", "croats is slavs people dont write stupids here to come from the Middle East about 3000 years ago ", "vandalism removed read article " I've little inclination to put up with any more.

. El_C 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now IP morphed as, repeating same edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked by User:Edgar181. --kingboyk (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Helloman124 reported by User:TheDoctorWho (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revert 1: Part 1 Part 2, 26 June 2019
 * 2) Revert 2:, 26 June 2019
 * 3) Revert 3: Part 1 Part 2, 27 June 2019
 * 4) Revert 4: Part 1 Part 2, 28 June 2019
 * 5) Revert 5:, 1 July 2019
 * 6) Revert 6: Part 1 Part 2, 3 July 2019
 * 7) Revert 7:, 3 July 2019
 * 8) Revert 8:, 4 July 2019
 * 9) Revert 9: Part 1 Part 2, 4 July 2019
 * 10) Revert 10: Part 1 Part 2, 5 July 2019
 * 11) Revert 11: Part 1 Part 2, 18 July 2019
 * 12) Revert 12: Part 1 Part 2, 18 July 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 4 July 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Initial discussion here From 25 June to 4 July
 * Secondary discussion here From 5 July to 9 July

Comments:

Plain and simple this is a case of long term edit warring by an editor who continued to revert despite active discussion on the talk page and multiple suggestions to discuss on the talk page. I thought it had been resolved but the editor came and made two more reverts today instead of discussing. User has had their preferred version reverted multiple times by myself as well as but continues to instate their preferred version instead of leaving the WP:STATUSQUO and coming to discuss. From a quick look at their talk page this isn't the first time they've been brought here (, nor was it the first time they've been warned for edit warring ). Since it appears their editing habits haven't changed with the previous warnings, ANI discussions, suggestions to take it to the talk page, etc. I think a more long-term block may be in need here. The Doctor Who (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:76.8.148.135 reported by User:Railfan23 (Result:

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906912966 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906881454 by Rick lay95 (talk) Canon is ambiguous at best and it isn't relevant; the article is reflective of source media"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906871807 by Rick lay95 (talk) Please stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate information"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 906870953 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 906869951 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 906825302 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 906816852 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 906775015 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 906707142 by Rick lay95 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "3RR warning" by User:Peacemaker67
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continued edit warring after 3RR warning. This has been going on for more than 36 hours. Railfan23 (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a clear revert after my warning, so I've blocked for 31 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Rick lay95 reported by User:Railfan23 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 906914407 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) See talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 906882869 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) See Talk Page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 906872133 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) This information is accurate. Comics and web series are NON CANON. I've yet to see any proof otherwise. You stop vandalizing unless you have proof. The burden is on you, not me."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 906871120 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 906870159 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 906826240 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 906821644 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 906778275 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

So, this has started up again after the 3RR warning. A long list of reverts over the last 36 hours or so Railfan23 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I consider this edit was actually constructive and not a straight revert, and was combined with an attempt to discuss on talk. Have reinforced the warning and encouraged discussion. Will keep the page on my watchlist and block for any further edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:49.183.57.34 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. I have just laid out the front page of tomorrow’s edition: “ALAIN DE BOTTON TARGETED BY ANTI ALAIN DE BOTTON PEOPLE ON WIKIPEDIA WANTING ANTI ALAIN MESSAGE TO PROSPER”. It will be front page!"
 * 2)  "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. Well it is clear the AA movement is widely afoot here on Wikipedia. I will be show to do an article about this in tomorrow’s newspaper. Regards, Eric Erbetz- Manhattan Office, New York Times."
 * 3)  "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. I don’t work for the Guardian. I work for the New York Times. I think I am going to have to do an article about this page and how there is clearly an “Anti-Alain” movement a foot. The AA movement will not win. I know Alain very well and he’s a great writer. Regards, Eric Erbetz"
 * 4)  "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here from the New York Times. Please do NOT remove my edit or else I will be forced to do an article on how this page has been manipulated against Alain. I have known Alain for many years and read his work and stand by my quote. Regards, Mr Eric Erbetz"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Alain de Botton */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Alain de Botton */ further comment"
 * 3)   "/* Alain de Botton */ please desist"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alain de Botton. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He's also doing the same thing at Neal D. Barnard. I've no idea whether he really is a writer at the NYT - at first I was willing to AGF, but it's looking less and less likely. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 14:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours by Liz for disruptive editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User with an account and multiple IP directions reported by User:Baprow (Result: Declined )
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

This user is adding incorrect information to the article "President of the Republic (Spain)". The article is not called "Heads of State of Spain who were not monarchs" but "President of the Republic" and this should talk about people who held that office or who ruled when Spain was a Republic. Franco, a military dictator who destroyed the Second Republic, who maintained his regime in a provisional ambiguity between 1939 and 1947 and who from 1947 until his death (1975) was officially regent of a kingdom without a king, should not appear on the list. In addition, the user pretend to eliminate the presidents of the Republic in exile.--Baprow (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DrChaos56 reported by User:Mazewaxie (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "She is the MCU version of Mary Jane look at the references"
 * 2)  "Quoting fiege “Well, we never even looked at it as a big reveal necessarily but more of just a fun homage to his past adventures and his past love. She's not Mary Jane Watson. She never was Mary Jane Watson. She was always this new high school character, Michelle, who we know there's an 'M' in Michelle and an 'M' in Mary. [laughs] So we're so clever and we thought, 'Wouldn't it be neat if her initials were MJ?” Mary Jane is a seperate character."
 * 3)  "Look Fiege said a homage to his past love, and in another interview Zendaya said Michelle is not Mary Jane, Mary Jane is a separate character entirely in the MCU, she is in a similar place to Miles Morales and Ben Parker have only been confirmed to exist through dialogue and interviews."
 * 1)  "Look Fiege said a homage to his past love, and in another interview Zendaya said Michelle is not Mary Jane, Mary Jane is a separate character entirely in the MCU, she is in a similar place to Miles Morales and Ben Parker have only been confirmed to exist through dialogue and interviews."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* July 2019 */"
 * 4)   "/* Mary Jane Watson */ new section"
 * 1)   "/* Mary Jane Watson */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

This user is constantly adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Also, looking at the type of edits he makes, it could be the same person that owned User:Hhggtg3279, an account that was blocked a few days ago. Maze waxie  17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now is insulting me. The more he keeps reverting, the more I think it's the same person that owned User:Hhggtg3279, judging by his writing. -- Maze  waxie  17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Super ninja2 reported by User:Masgouf (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just blocked Masgouf as a ✅ sock of .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:5Ept5xW reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: which they responded to negatively.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this edit war but discussions occurred on user talk pages from what I understand.

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation but part of a pattern of edit warring. This user was recently blocked for edit warring (for 3RR) on the same page and seems to take a damn-the-rules-damn-consensus-I'm-right attitude. Third revert falls minutes outside 24 hours. Would like to see at least a formal warning against this behavior and encouragement for them to work to consensus on article talk pages rather than getting into revert wars. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, if you look at what I was reverting you will see that I am in fact trying to improve the article. One of those reverts was a revert of a mistaken revert, as acknowledged by the user who was responsible for the original revert. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . It's not the same page as before, related but different. I'm on the fence as to whether to block again. I have to say that the edits made by various users are less like reverts than attempts to work out differences at the article rather than on the Talk page. Not the way it should go, but it doesn't necessarily justify blocking either. I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the word "uncrewed", which (1) looks like a very unfortunate typo and (2) is a testament to the destruction of the English language by Wikipedians.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion had been removed, here is a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALauritzT&type=revision&diff=906916672&oldid=906916366) 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you talk to NASA about uncrewed. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction on who is destroying the English language. As for discussion, I said the article Talk page, not a user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What about my conduct on the Atlas V(?) talk page was objectionable, if I may ask? 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're being obtuse. I said you should have worked this out on the article Talk page, which you didn't do because you didn't edit the Talk page. You might be able to get away with this considering that you didn't violate 3RR at Atlas V, but given your recent block for edit-warring, you don't have to violate 3RR to be reblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is surprisingly complicated and not all that accessible to a new user like me. As you can see, I was not engaged in an edit war on the Atlas V article, and the article has become more informative as a result of my edits (while also not incorporating the redundant language that another editor correctly objected to). I was thinking that the argument about gender neutral language was an entirely separate issue, are they in your considered opinion connected? I understand that you do not like my use of gender neutral language, but find myself preoccupied with administrative issues and unable to properly develop a coherent line of thought. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the only exceptions are listed at WP:3RRNO. Trying to improve the article, which many could claim, or fixing "erroneous" edits other than blatant vandalism, do not justify back-and-forth reverts (or more than, say, 2 per day and not on an every day basis). I do think you are a good faith editor and I don't think you should be blocked at this point, rather warned that if you continue a pattern of very aggressive back-and-forth reverts a block may be necessary. It is required that users, even new ones, be competent enough to familiarize themselves with the published policies, especially after warnings. It is good to see that you understand that leaving the comma in place and working to add other material around it avoids a reversion, but you are still failing to use the article talk page (so others can give input) to work out the fundamental differences.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and certainly not through unilateral mass changes. If you want mass changes to more neutral language I would suggest the RfC process, which if you have questions about I would be glad to help as far as I know the right procedures, and I'm sure others would be as well. I'll note that "uncrewed" is rejected by both my spellchecker and my preferred dictionary (M-W), but I am open to arguments toward its use. Good luck to you and happy editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the user that placed the edit warring notice on the user' talk page. I misunderstood the user's actions – I no longer think the user was edit warring at the time I placed the notice. The user has shown good faith and seems to be willing to learn about and comply with policies. As such, I do not think a block would be appropriate. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker reported by User:Lightburst (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]</S>
 * 5) History of the past few hours of edits on the article

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

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

Comments:

I was on PROD patrol and saw areas to improve this article - I did some research on the subject and added some references to this stub. Also created a category for the readability. The nominator immediately tagged all of my refs "failed verification". I went to the nom's talk page and explained why the "failed verification" tags were incorrect. By the time I was done typing the nom had an AfD slapped on the article. I went to the article and did clean up of the referenced material - verified that information was cited correctly, removed the "failed verification" tags. But... the nominator put the "failed verification" tags back in reverted my work. Based upon the nom's evident desire to delete the article I suggest that it is a conflict of interest for a nominator to delete, tag, and revert during this deletion process. I cannot improve the article while the nominator deleted and reverts to the nominator's preferred version. I count 8 instances in the past several hours where the editor has erased a category, reverted info twice and tagged my work. For my part I have not reverted the editor and have attempted to improve an article. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have linked the same diff twice. Why? ST47 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I struck one, and added the overall history. It is my first time making such a report.Lightburst (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This submission appears to be as much through inexperience and lack of understanding of terminology, guidelines and policies as vexatiousness.

The user who submitted the report has accused me of WP:COI, I think on the basis that, having PRODed the article, they regard it as illegitimate to subsequently AFD it or make further edits to it. This is an apparent misunderstanding of the term and policy.

The user added some material and references which do not discuss the subject of the article or verify the material therein, in regard to the subject of the article. I tagged the sources as having “failed verification” and two (at least) of these tags were removed by the user without addressing the issue. I replaced the tags, explained why I was doing so in the edit summary and at talk but decided not to issue a “Removal of maintenance templates” warning due to the user’s apparent inexperience and a presumption of good faith and that they may pay heed to my explanations; perhaps I should have warned them.

I’m unclear as to what is being referred to when the user states that they “Also created a category for the readability” and that I “erased a category”.

The diffs given above relate to edits on entirely different aspects of the material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This thread on my talk page may also be pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

To note, having checked the edit history of the article, this removal of a maintenance template by the user is of course entirely warranted as it accompanies the removal by them of the unsupported material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

...but not the other such removals. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: it is my practice to improve articles. I have participated in hundreds of article improvements and I have never had a nominator act in this manner. Most of the time the person who has placed a PROD thanks me for the work I have done. In this case the nominator immediately dismissed any work that I did and placed an AfD before any discussion. The nomination then focussed on my work rather than the validity of the nomination. Next nearly every edit that I made to improve the article was stepped on, and the article was rendered a stub again through wholesale changes made by the nominator. When an editor is so determined to delete an article it has the appearance of a conflict of interest for that editor to revert, dismiss and erase content. The nominator believes that the Fritter roll can only be made one way, and the roll cannot have any other substance used for the interior. I submitted WP:RS to show that individuals have customized the Fritter roll. Just as Spaghetti is made with zucchini noodles, and cabbage leaves can be stuffed with beef, or rice, or chicken, etc.
 * In any event, the article has been rendered a stub because of this nominator's content dispute and I have been reluctant to continue improvement because of this nominator's tendentiousness. The nominator has demonstrated a non-collegial attitude while also vigorously depreciating the article to make this AfD go the nominator's way. (Diff 2 shows the erased category along with two deleted reliable sources). I now ask for the nominator to step back and allow the article development in this forum, because asking the editor on talk pages did not work. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GergisBaki reported by User:Lindenfall (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) July 16
 * 2) July 17
 * 3) July 19

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kirkland & Ellis

Comments:

I'd urged them to the TALK page, in my page editing notes. The reversals and re-additions of information all appear to support the editor's desire to sensationalize by WP:coatracking controversial clients into the lead paragraphs. (One subject is recently infamous; the other may warrant some inclusion, as well, but not as done, or as placed.) There has been some attempt by user:Snooganssnoogans to restore the questionable lead inclusion, as well. Today, I see that GergisBaki had been quite active on the page prior to this dispute, so the edit-warring to sensationalize situation may date back further than I know, which I had thought to be around July 15. Thank you, in advance, for your time. Lindenfall (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:70.27.77.226 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: 48hr )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * for disruptive editing <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  11:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2.92.126.42 reported by User:MrClog (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* A last search for allies */  Please argue your actions."
 * 2)  "/* A last search for allies */ After discussion on the talk-page."
 * 3)  "/* Construction */  Please argue your actions."
 * 4)  "/* Construction */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Ungoing talk page conversation. No apparent consensus reached yet, but user keeps implementing the change.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I was uninvolved, but came across this editing as part of pending changes review. --MrClog (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Blocked one month for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:My Lord reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Frederickarcher (talk): Poorly sourced irrelevant content (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 2 edits by Frederickarcher (talk) to last revision by My Lord (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 907243953 by My Lord (talk): Rv vandalism (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 907201978 by My Lord (talk): Can you please stop adding irrelevant information? (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted to revision 906279231 by Amakuru (talk): Non-encyclopedic (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jaggi Vasudev. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* DS Notice */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) diff : Talk:Jaggi Vasudev Section "Criticism": new section


 * Comments:

Both users were warned about AC DS as well as Edit warring. And the warning was clearly ignored by User:My Lord as the diff shows. the other editor did initiate the talk page thread which was ignored to make a fifth revert. The edit summaries are clearly problematic as well calling addition of disputed content as vandalism. D Big X ray ᗙ  11:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both and  are blatantly edit-warring. Why you,, despite your explanation, are reporting only one is beyond me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, as I said in my comment the report concerns both users and my comment covered incidents until the time of filing of the report. (If you are commenting about the lack of User link of Frederickarcher in the report, that's because twinkle doesnt allow 2 names (or may be I am yet to find how it does)) I see that even after this report both have happily reverted each other since then So please do what must be done. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Pascotam reported by User:Matthew hk (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/907468850

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Nil. But had communicated in User talk:Pascotam
 * 1) Special:Diff/907494442
 * 2) Special:Diff/907495094
 * 3) Special:Diff/907495311
 * 4) Special:Diff/907499511
 * 5) Special:Diff/907514482. (After band-aid fixing the lede, he still adding not quite relevant ref to "supporting" his POV of "terror attack" as the wording of the lede, but that ref actually not supporting my band-aid statement "Some politicians and public figures condemned it was a terror attack." 13:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil. But literally a there is a related thread regarding the WP:article title which a bold move was carried to avoid the terror attack wording as the first consensus. See Talk:2019 Yuen Long violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by matthew hk (talk • contribs) 2019-07-23T10:16:23 (UTC)

Comments:

FYI, SPI had opened instead, as a new editor emerged to preform the revert. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nblund reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Being dealt with elsewhere)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 907520851 by Cosmic Sans (talk) rm while discussion is ongoing per"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 907479702 by 75.162.75.252 (talk) I don't. Don't add again until you get consensus on the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 907464096 by 75.162.75.252 (talk) then you should find sources for it"
 * 4)  "/* Trans woman denied waxing services */ this appears to refer to a different case in Windsor Ontario"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Comment May be premature; there are BLP concerns in play, and it's currently under discussion at WP:BLP/N. Pinging who has addressed some of the questions raised. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * half the fields in this report (three out of six) have been submitted blank. El_C 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because asked to comment, I think the material being removed is just on the edge of where WP:3RRNO exceptions live for BLP. While the individual is not named on the article yet, its material clearly relating to a specific person, so this is a BLP concern. The text being removed is, potentially, overly explicit related to a trans individual and does not seem needed when more concise language gets the same point across without bringing up genitalia and the like. But technically that also seems part of the story as reported. To me, I feel Nblund is in the right here in terms of keeping that content out of the article, at least until consensus is determined, but its also not an "obvious" BLP violation to meet 3RRNO. I don't think action is necessary as long as people are talking about it, but definitely would recommend to keep said material out until discussion is concluded since it is bordering on BLP issues. --M asem (t) 17:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it is necessary to claim a BLP exception in the revert summary, otherwise warring is blockable. w umbolo   ^^^  18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not required, though helpful. If for example, some type of edit warring was going on on Tom Cruise's page, and the same removals about lack of sourcing was made, that easily can be seen as a BLP situation. In this case, yes, it probably would have been better for Nblund to ID their reverts as meeting BLP since the page obstinately is not appearing as a BLP page, though the situation at hand is. However that's not to a level that strong-arm action is needed here. --M asem (t) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW: I meant to cite WP:BLPREMOVE in that last edit, that's why the summary ends with the word "per...". I clicked submit before I linked it. In any case, I don't think that's actually a rule. Nblund talk 18:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * actually I know it's a rule since I have been blocked for not following it. w umbolo   ^^^  18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Not really sure how Wumbolo got involved here. I didn't realize I was close to the limit, but this is a salacious and weakly sourced bit of speculation about a barely notable living person's genitals. I opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, but I also think WP:BLPREMOVE applies. The page has previously been locked for serious BLP violations, and several of those violations came from a single purpose IP user from a similar location to the one who added this detail, so I was being fairly aggressive in removing this. I probably should have let someone else revert though, and I'll refrain from future reverts while the discussion is ongoing.   Nblund talk 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The IP that Nblund reverted twice is obviously the same person that was previously blocked for BLP violations on this article (and those edits were oversighted, not just hidden). IMHO the IP is not a new editor, either (use of cite news template on second edit?).  I recommend this be closed with no action, and discussed on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Closed with no action. See WP:BLP/N. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour and User:Wikieditor19920 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the QuestFour's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 2 edits by Wikieditor19920 (talk): Per WP:CON (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 907531233 by QuestFour (talk): There needs to be editorial consensus on this regardless (TW)"
 * 3)  "per talk"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 907487178 by QuestFour (talk): Nonconsensus changes (TW)"
 * 5)  "ce"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 907420832 by Wags bf21 (talk) unexplained change"
 * 7)  "replaced with TIME source that uses the terminology "direct action""
 * 8)  "WP:TC: "Do some research to attempt to solve the problem before tagging.""
 * 9)  "/* Ideology and activities */ image doesn't illustrate the text that well; most of the pictured activists are maskless, the previous images are sufficient"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 907302847 by Wikieditor19920 (talk) it's your burden to gain consensus for your edits, take it to the talk page and discuss there"
 * 11)  "Reverted to revision 907294846 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Please discuss with other editors and gain consensus before making major changes to the article (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 907294846 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Please discuss with other editors and gain consensus before making major changes to the article (TW)"


 * Diffs of the Wikieditor19920's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 907571715 by QuestFour (talk) Misrepresentation - no consensus against these changes"
 * 2)  "grammar changes throughout article"
 * 3)  "This is getting absurd - the lead is in need of common-sense changes to reflect what's been reported, and the synthesizing must be removed"
 * 4)  "This article is about US Antifa - why so much emphasis on international?"
 * 5)  "Applying neutral tone to opening paragraph"
 * 6)  "Applying neutrality tag - do not remove this without further discussion. WP:CLEANUPTAG"
 * 7)  "grammar fixes"
 * 8)  "improper synth"
 * 9)  "POV lead - see talk page"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 907303655 by QuestFour (talk) Reverting for the sake of reverting is stupid, counterproductive, and harms the consensus building process. Again, if you have specific objections, feel free to discuss them on the talk page"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 907301688 by QuestFour (talk) If you disagree with my changes, consider discussing before reverting"
 * 12)  "/* Response */ Removing inappropriate juxtaposition"
 * 13)  "/* Notable activism */"
 * 14)  "/* Ideology and activities */"
 * 15)  "Trimming lead"
 * 16)  ""comprised of" error, start with stating what group is"
 * 17)  "Unclear what "autonomous" means in this context"
 * 1)  "/* Ideology and activities */"
 * 2)  "Trimming lead"
 * 3)  ""comprised of" error, start with stating what group is"
 * 4)  "Unclear what "autonomous" means in this context"


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


 * 


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Antifa_(United_States)


 * Comments:

Partial filing... more coming  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

See user talk pages for other related warnings (e.g. DS).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Filing completed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not violate 3RR. I have nonetheless self-reverted my last revision. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this filing was not about 3RR, it was about edit warring. Both editors had been warned about edit warring. QuestFour was warned by about WP:ARBAP2 as well. I see Wikieditor19920 was not warned about those discretionary sanctions, so I will remedy that momentarily  posted a warning 11 months ago to Wikieditor19920 on ARBAP2. Regardless, behavior is very poor by both editors on this page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What a mess. It seems like every attempt to edit this article gets immediately reverted. No 3RR violations but clear edit warring. This should probably result in 1RR sanctions. I don't know if that has to go to AE or not. I'll double check that everyone involved has been alerted recently. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AP2 DS alerts are current for both Wikieditor19920 and QuestFour. ST47 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is unproductive and will keep my changes to the talk page for now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

. This is pretty excessive. I have placed the article under 1RR, but may add consensus required to the ds if the edit war continue with this intensity. El_C 20:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Libhye reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "maybe unnecessary, but appropriate considering the controversy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Tel Aviv appears to show consensus against Libyhe, but Libyhe appears determined to insert his/her preferred text in one form or another.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Editor has been warring on Gush Dan, Tel Aviv, and Jaffa Port. Articles were previously protected; when they went off protection, Libyhe immediately reverted back, and then continued to revert. Articles may be on a 1RR restriction for this issue. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This report suffers from a cavalier attitude to facts. Only the Tel Aviv article was previously protected. The linked RfC is about which name of Tel Aviv to mention first in the Tel Aviv article. I was in favour of leading with Tel Aviv-Jaffa, but the majority in the RfC wanted to lead with Tel Aviv-Yafo, so as soon as the article was unprotected, I implemented this consensus, which the edit history shows was definitely not my preferred version.


 * There has never been any consensus on how to refer to the city in other articles, nor is that part of the RfC.


 * Another issue, that is also not part of the RfC, is the violation of WP:NPOV in the version of the Tel Aviv article that implies East Jerusalem is part of Israel. Here, it is necessary because of the NPOV policy (which is not subject to discussion) to simply explain the two sides, rather than without comment expressing the view of one of the parties to the Middle East conflict. Libhye (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If I've understood correctly, you're saying that everyone responding to that RFC (except you) agrees that the name should be Tel Aviv-Yafo, but since the RFC was on one specific Talk: page, you'll refer to it as Tel Aviv Yafo in that one article, but still as "Tel Aviv Jaffa" everywhere else? That seems tendentious at best. Moreover, if there's anything that "suffers from a cavalier attitude to facts", it's your claim that "the majority in the RfC wanted to lead with Tel Aviv-Yafo, so as soon as the article was unprotected, I implemented this consensus, which the edit history shows was definitely not my preferred version". In this revert and this revert, made after the article was unprotected, you clearly added your preferred "Tel Aviv Jaffa" to the article, despite no-one on the RFC agreeing with that formulation. "a cavalier attitude to the facts" indeed. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators, please do not let this report languish, then take no action because it is stale. In, for example, the Tel Aviv article, this editor has been continually trying to insert this text and edit-war over this since July 5, as these links show: I count at least 8 reverts, sometimes more than one in a day, on material that is arguably under 1RR, and there would no doubt have been more, had the article not been protected. The Gush Dan and Jaffa Port articles show a similar pattern. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, the material is not under 1RR presently, but I agree that edit warring across multiple articles —one of which (Tel Aviv) I had already protected as a result— is a problem. Libhye, the RfC reached a consensus and it should by default apply across multiple articles, unless different consensus emerges to the contrary. El_C 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles themselves need not be under 1RR, but Libyhe is also edit-warring over whether or not East Jerusalem is part of Israel (as his edit summaries make clear); without doubt those edits are under 1RR. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the RfC (which apparently I authored, somehow!) has not been closed yet, so that part of my comment has been stricken through. El_C 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, affirmative. I have added the ARBPIA DS to the article, otherwise applying DS relating to this article becomes problematic. El_C 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Obsuser reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 907660969 by Mm.srb (talk)"
 * 2)  "latn has priority in Bosnian"
 * 3)  "add sources"
 * 4)  "fix"
 * 5)  "truth"
 * 6)  "And you have to learn not to call truth a crap"
 * 7)  "please sto preventing me from editing"
 * 8)  "ethnic groups cannot form as a nation; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, UK and American people (as well as national Germans, Russians etc.) for e.g. are nations, and Bosniaks, ethnic Germans, ethnic Russians are not nations but ethnic groups, cannot be two cats at same time, there is different name for ethnic group – Serbs and a nation – Serbians"
 * 9)  "use invisible character zwj to make title appear; * to correct my previous comment: ethnic groups can form as a nation but it is case with Serbs too but those Serbs who make nation you mentioned are called Serbians and not Serbs"
 * 10)  "one more ugly dot; correct again: * AND it is case with Serbs too"
 * 11)  "please be careful with adjectives, Serb is an English noun adjective for noun Serb i.e. pl. Serbs; Serbian is an adjective for noun Serbia or Serbian i.e. pl. Serbians"
 * 12)  "add clarification on the adjective form usage"
 * 13)  "expand on the inconsistent usage of the adjective srpski in Serbian"
 * 14)  "Yes but not this way lying, you insult Undid revision 907575137 by Mm.srb (talk)"
 * 15)  "Sorry but nope Undid revision 907574144 by Mm.srb (talk)"
 * 16)  "Not a nation, Serbians are a nation (with state passport); Serbs are an ethnic group / people only"
 * 1)  "Sorry but nope Undid revision 907574144 by Mm.srb (talk)"
 * 2)  "Not a nation, Serbians are a nation (with state passport); Serbs are an ethnic group / people only"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * #About_editwarring
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Serbs. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Serbs. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "/* ANI courtesy notice */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Serbs are not a nation */  :I have reverted your additions because they are unsourced. Please provide WP:RELIABLESOURCES for all your claims.  Dr.   K.  12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)"


 * Comments:

Fast-paced POV-pushing. Editor is after WP:TRUTH. Please see also ANI report. Dr.  K.  12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources added now, so breaking WP:TRUTH is not valid accusation anymore. If previous content is unverifiable, why would it stay instead of true one also unverifiable (if the new one was unverifieable, and it is not, there are references now)? --Obsuser (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, long-paced POV has been present in the article (still is down after the lede), so reverting to any previous version is unacceptable. --Obsuser (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:NikhilPatelReal reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "refer talk page for details"
 * 2)  "only some upper caste prohibited widow remarraige. also amongst kurmis only awadhiya kurmis prohibited widow remaariage which was reason for rise of their status."
 * 3)  "customs and traditions added."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The other user is not suppose to edit war when I've opened a discussion as per WP:BRD Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There was no point of discussion in the first place. The user Fylindfotberserk deleted the content of the article despte the fact that it was supported by reputable source and in explanation he says that he does not think that the content added is necessary. also the fact that he should have started the discussion before making any such edits which shows no respect for other users. i clearly notified him in the talk page of awadhiya caste after there was no response from other users for around 24 hours that i am going bring back the original content till the time the discussion concludes. i was absolutely ready for a mutual aggrement but the arrogance is clearly visible when my content was reported without prior warnings in the talk page. and its his fault in the entire case and he is the one who should be penalised. --NikhilPatelReal (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A Bold edit has been made at 20:09, 20 July 2019, it got Reverted at 09:57, 21 July 2019, so as per WP:BRD, NikhilPatelReal should have opened a Discussion, instead he reverted back at 10:05, 21 July 2019.
 * After that I opened a discussion in the talk at 10:13, 21 July 2019 to which he made a comment at 18:50, 21 July 2019 and simultaneously reverted the article at 18:52, 21 July 2019


 * No, he didn't wait for 24 hours like he said above, he reverted it just after 8 hours as you can see. And when I'd pinged some users with expertise in Indian caste related matter, NikhilPatelReal should have waited for atleast one of them to comeby. Caste in India is a hot topic and this article itself has seen a lot of POV pushes and stuff in the past. NikhilPatelReal should have discussed in the article talk first before putting something as trivial as "banning of widow-remarriages" which is a common practice in India compounded with blatant POV phrases like "have attained higher rank than the ordinary Kurmis" or "pride themselves on their prohibiting the remarriage"
 * - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I dont think that the user Fylindfotberserk has any idea about indian society. prohibiting widow remairrage is only the custom of upper castes and remaining all other castes which are the whooping majority do not practice it. Also, amongst kurmis only the Awadhiya kurmi caste has banned the widow remarriage and since this ban is considered a superior social custom and ritual hence the sub caste awadhiya kurmi has higher status in comparison to all other kurmi sub castes. how can such an important practice which is responsible for raising the social status of a sub caste within the caste not important? prohibting widow remarriage is only practiced by awadhiya kurmis which is a huge change in the norm of kurmi caste which fully allows widow remarriage. hence it is an important practice worth mentioning. the problem with the user Fylindfotberserk ia that he considers his personal opinion worth that much value that he simply deletes anything he wants without even opening the discussion before deleting. If he does not have sufficient information related to castes like kurmis and awadhiyas then he should not unnecessarily delete things on the basis of his so called "personal opinion". i only bought back the main content because it was important and i clearly mentioned that let it stay till the time the discussion concludes. if the decision is against it then i will be the fist one to remove it. so my work was in good faith but his decision was a display of arrogance. --NikhilPatelReal (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This report here is not about my knowledge of Indian society, it is about you not following WP:BRD. And as I said in the previous comment, it is the duty of the user (you) to open a DISCUSSION whose BOLD edits got REVERTED, not mine. The article has faced a lot of POV pushing in the past. It was necessary from your part to discuss the new content beforehand or atleast when I asked you to and wait for other editors' suggestions. And you didn't bring back anything old. It was just a recently added content by you. Same old rhetoric of "only Awadhiyas do it and they are prideful and considered superior" will not do. And this "ban on widow marriages" is only considered better in the "eyes" of the Brahmins as per sources. Who knows what other castes think about this. That's why I wanted to have a discussion. Secondly, you've to prove that "prohibiting widow remarriage" is only practiced among upper castes and who are these upper castes is a question. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk you didnt even refer to the second source which is "Kurmi jamat ka itihas", it clearly mentions in the book that raise in social status of awadhiyas was overall and due to the social custom of prohibiting widow remarriage. anyone who has knowledge of hinduism and indian society clearly knows who the upper castes are, thats why i am saying that you should not edit pages which you do not understand. your questions are similar to "what came first the chicken or the egg?" they are useless and to justify those useless questions you say that you found the information "trivial" "in your opinion". wikipedia doesnt care about your opinion, it cares about the facts, and i have provided the facts. you should check "kurmi jamat ka itihas" to know about the facts but instead you decided to do what was good "in your opinion" instead of relying on factual data. NikhilPatelReal (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * you should not edit pages which you do not understand. Clearly shows WP:OWNERSHIP characteristics from your part. You shouldn't dictate someone else when you yourself displayed ignorance towards typical guidelines for editing Indian community articles and general Wikipedia. Addition of unreliable "blog-type" sources here and addition of scientific racism here, here and then engaging in edit war here.
 * Only the Brahmins are unanimously considered upper-castes. Other clans/castes do not get the same treatment in every region of India. Jats, for example, are at the upper end of the spectrum in Punjab but are considered backward castes in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, etc. Even Saraswat brahmins are considered of lower status among Brahmins of Konkan/Maharashtra area.
 * Coming to the point, the source "kurmi jamat ka itihas" is likely not to pass WP:RS but the other one might. Besides, this notice is not about reliability of sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1011:B004:1D90:7C9B:B7CC:547C:B8D8 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv character assassination of Gavin in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons please maintain neutral point of view. https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 2)  "Rv character assassination of Gavin in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons please maintain neutral point of view. https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 3)  "Rv character assassination of Gavin in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons please maintain neutral point of view. https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 4)  "Rv character assassination of Gavin in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons please maintain neutral point of view. https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 5)  "Rv character assassination of Gavin in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons please maintain neutral point of view.   https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 6)  "Rv to neutral version https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 7)  "Rv vandalism and character assassination of Gavin Menzies in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece"
 * 8)  "Removing character assassination POV which violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Please adhere to neutral point of view, read these sources  https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece.        https://www.ancient.eu/article/1334/the-seven-voyages-of-zheng-he/"
 * 9)  "Removed POV character assassination of Gavin Menzies. Please adhere to Wikipedia official policy of maintaining neutrality and nonPOV in regards to biographies of living persons"
 * 10)  "Character assassination and POV personal attacks against a living person Gavin Menzies violates official Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Please adhere to neutral point of view"
 * 11)  "Npov"
 * 1)  "Character assassination and POV personal attacks against a living person Gavin Menzies violates official Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Please adhere to neutral point of view"
 * 2)  "Npov"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Could someone kindly have a look if these reverts are actually covered by WP:BLP and else block the user for edit warring? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP for the edit warring. I looked at the edits and do not believe that the disputed content violates WP:BLP.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:LillyLime reported by User:Mcmatter (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Tax policy */"
 * 2)  "/* Tax policy */"
 * 3)  "/* Tax policy */"
 * 4)  "/* Tax policy */ Deleting Libel"
 * 5)  "/* Tax policy */"
 * 6)  "/* Tax policy */"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned and continues to revert changes and and refuse to discuss and reach consensus. The other user involved has attempted to discuss on the talk page of the article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. User:Hankyjade has been warring to add a sentence to the article saying that the El Paso mayor Dee Margo and seven members of the city council voted to raise taxes. The headline on the story only says City council considers an 8 per cent tax increase. The El Paso Times also reported: "City representatives said they won’t necessarily adopt the rollback rate, but that proposing it gives them wiggle room to add any last-minute funding requests to the proposed $895.5 million budget presented in early July." This is not quite the same as voting to increase taxes, which is the flat statement that Hankyjade wants to make in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:Adervae (Result: Adervae warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "claims like largest, etc. require extraordinarily good sources. Niche isn't a reliable source for anything, and the district making claims about itself is not sufficient."
 * 2)  "Reverted 2 edits by Adervae (talk): Gain consensus for your change. next time you are going to a noticeboard. there is already a discussion on the talk page. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Adervae: There is no reason to outsize the photo. if no size parameter is entered, it will optimize for the type device you are viewing it on. do not change it without consensus. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 2 edits by Adervae: Change to image size non-constructive and unneeded. other bit unsourced and lacking consensus, which the editor inserting certainly is well aware of. (TW)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a local page about a high school with little traffic and I try to improve it every once and a while. Every time I do something, User:John from Idegon reverts it and deletes a large chunk of the page along with it. This user wants me to get a consensus for every single edit in the page's talk page before I actually make the final edits. Like I said, this page has few visitors to make such a consensus, so the "consensus" means whatever User:John from Idegon approves of. Instead of simply fixing some of my mistakes, this user reverted my edits and gave me guidelines on what to fix. I did fix them, and my edits were again reverted. I was then accused of being involved in disruptive editing and starting an edit war. This user sent me messages that threated that I would be blocked from editing. Adervae (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The last isn't a revert, it's a totally separate issue. I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding the issue (which btw is a reboot of an issue from several years ago) and the other editor hasn't commented. Note the first two reverts also removed a copyvio image. I'm in the clear here. The other editor not so much. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Every time someone barely touches this page, you're at with deleting everything. You have made it clear that you think that you own the page, by your style of reverting everything. The case for the edit war is that you continually target this page and my edits on this page versus all of these other pages that could use some work. Adervae (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to upload files like File:Parkland High School from School Profile.png without the required file copyright licensing, then it's not only a clear violation of WP:IUP which likely going to be removed but there's also a good chance the removal(s) will be considered an exception to 3RR per item 5 of WP:3RRNO. Immediately re-adding the same image here was probably not a good thing to do, but re-adding it a third time here was even worse. Image use can be tricky, but it's the uploader of the image to assume it meets basic policy. Did you take this photo yourself or are you otherwise claiming copyirght ownership over it? If you're not the copyright holder of the photo, removing it seems like the correct thing to have done. As for the other stuff, you were WP:BOLD and made a change, another editor reverted your change and as unsourced and lacking consensus; when that happens, it's best to follow WP:DR and discuss things on the article's talk page instead of trying to force through the changes you want to make by editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ...this shows PHS as your third most edited page. This shows Parkland isn't even in my top 9. These links also show that we both have the same number of average edits per page (4) and that I've made roughly 150 times the number of edits you have. Perhaps maybe that suggests I'm a bit more aware of what the community deems appropriate, especially on schools, which are 8 of the 9 top edited articles on my list? It's much more likely, that since I'm trying to discuss and you are not, that your claim of OWN on my part is much more the pot calling the kettle black than based in fact. John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And based on our community's standards, we just want all school articles to be stubs? Schools are a weak spot for Wikipedia, not helped by their own policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adervae (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Adervae is warned for edit warring. John's removal of an image that violates copyright is protected under WP:3RRNO. Adervae's claim that the architecture of the school was 'cloned' from other buildings also needs good sourcing. The reference provided doesn't use the word 'cloned'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Wrestlinglover reported by User:Galatz (Result: )
User being reported:

There have been attempts to resolve the issue at both User_talk:Galatz and User_talk:Wrestlinglover. The edits are very clearly against WP:PW/SG which addresses how these items should be presented, which is why I am not taking this to dispute resolution. This user is very aware of the Edit War guidelines, based on this edit so there is no need for me to issue them a warning before bringing this here.

This user has been mostly inactive for 2 years with 21 edits since 2017. I obviously have no issue with that and this user has made plenty of great articles so I welcome them back, but they have returned to Wikipedia and is mass reverting to the way things were 2 years ago, rather than going with current consensus. These edits are often incorrect as things have obviously changed in two years, but they are just blindly going back to how it was when the GA was approved, as they stated here I returned to the previously reviewed approved prose that used the previous links because that page didn't exist when they articles were reviewed. They way this user is talking, they feel that once they get it to GA, it should never be changed.

Here are a few examples of pages:

Page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - This was the users first edit back on this page. He undid edits to change the piping of what showed on the infobox (which was changed across the board based on consensus). He removed a Wikitable with event related information without explanation (it is standard to include on professional wrestling articles). He changes the linking and random capitalization of things in the results table box.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - This edit was after they threatened me with edit warring, and after I explained many points to them in detail on my talk page. They state they are reverting it to "Consensus version" which I assume means its the GA approved version, despite it going against what the style guide currently shows at WP:PW/SG.

Page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) - As you can see by this edit summary Going back to how it was under GA review. There was a reason I designed it like this this user is just reverting back blindly
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Similar issues also exist on the following pages, all of which the user has done 4RR (since their first edit was a revert of multiple years of changes):

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Thanks -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lets begin. How many edits have I made recently? Not many. Why? I'm a Masters student. Am I still active? Yes. Occasionally I come on here and look at things but mostly I ignore everything. The current issues come up due to the above individual feeling the need to change several articles without exact reasons. He is pointing to the style guide, which I find kind of laughable and most veteran editors of the project never really looked at that thing because it was always out dated. I ask why does this editor wish to point to it? Because he edits it regularly and likes to engage on edit warring with it. As per his edit war with MPJ in the history of the page. Since the start of this year, he has made more edits to that page than any other editor. He is pointing to something he likes to craft. Not an actual consensus that was ever reached. His above links point to issues that I address in my captions, he points to the style guide but not what part of the style guide as if it is a blanket he can pull out and wave around. His mentions of piping and redirects. He likes to go into articles and change working links to things like Six Sides of Steel to Six Sides of Steel, thus creating a redirect from something that did not need to exist. I have returned these pages back to how they were when they were reviewed. When objectively, they were seen as the best quality they could be. And effectively, if they are the best quality they should be, they shouldn't be changed without a defining reason.
 * I point out this edit on Bound for Glory IV where effectively he is changing the style of match names to something they were not. Matches such as a Three Way War which was the proper name and title given to the match upon promotion of the event have been changed to three-way dance or three-way war over time. They were given a proper title similar to Hell in a Cell, Lethal Lockdown, War Games, Elimination Chamber, etc. This is what they should be called and this was agreed upon throughout all of the GA and FA reviews for these articles. For them to be changed is to go against the agreement that was already established. The issue now comes is the supposed style guide and these in conflict? Supposedly they are and which one wins out in the end? I feel it is all done the editors who work on the articles and the reviewers. The style guide is a guideline and not a must do. In several cases it has been wrong over the years and it has been adapted. For a long period of my tenure, it wasn't even updated. How articles were written was determined by the editor and the review decisions over the years. Thats how the current PPV format was adapted was due to ever changing standards by reviews. The style guide was amended to reflect that later. Historically, the style guide was amended based on the FA reviews of No Way Out (2004) and SummerSlam (2003). That is where the consensus was usually determined for style with discussion on the project talk page reflecting the issues of the broader community at large.
 * I will address each one of his links. The first link he mentions a table. It a related article I removed the same table. Why? There is a section called miscellaneous in each one of those articles that explain the exact same information. I explained this to him on his talk page. He must have issues with that. That table never existed in these articles to begin with. It was abandoned years ago. It was never there under any of the reviews for any of the pages with prose being adapted to take its place as more informative and sourced. Next description he says I threatened him, I said I'd report him for edit warring as he is doing here for he reverted my edits on all pages and forgone the entire discussion. I made my edits first, he reverted them despite my reasons being made clear in my captions. He sought to revert and then send me a message. I detailed my reasons once again and returned. He then sought to engage in an edit war by using his blanket with the style guide. I noticed his history. He has at least 2 notices on his talk page of disruptive edit warring from this month alone. I informed him once again. As for his statement of reverting blindly. No, I returned the Reception section to the proper place. Which he would know since that is how the style guide he is trying to wave around says to do it. I then placed the proper names back into the results section and hyperlinked everything for tables are except from overlinking. I knew exactly what I was doing in that edit and there was a reason for it all. Overall, my position is that I was trying to improve the articles for quality. I have no issue with redirects. However, I was finding redirects were being made when they didn't exist in the first place. To me that is wasteful and unneeded. If redirects already exist, then fine. To break already working links to make them sounds pointless.-- Will C  20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: Also to give some examples of what the articles originally were upon review I present this version of Victory Road 08 which shows my edits were to return the page to the original layout. They look almost exact with minor changes. That was the point of my edits.-- Will C  20:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He is pointing to something he likes to craft. Not an actual consensus that was ever reached. - I have not edited anything major on the style guide without it first being discussed first. The editing with MPJ you are mentioning was he changed something that was first discussed, he then brought the changes back to the talk page, it was discussed and finalized. Many times things are discussed in the WikiProject and then the style guide not updated to reflect the conclusion. Just because I make the edit, does not mean I am just changing things, everything was discussed. What major changes did I make that was not first discussed? You cannot find anything, because I don't.
 * I point out this edit on Bound for Glory IV where effectively he is changing the style of match names to something they were not. Matches such as a Three Way War which was the proper name and title given to the match upon promotion of the event have been changed to three-way dance or three-way war over time. - Now you are just making stuff up, no where does it call it a Three-way dance. In fact the word dance does not appear anywhere in the link you provided.
 * The style guide is a guideline and not a must do. You are talking about "Tag Tag" vs "tag team". This is not the name of the match, it is a type of match, which is why its lower case, and the guideline reflects it as such. There is no reason to capitalize something that is not a proper noun just because you feel like it.
 * The first link he mentions a table. It a related article I removed the same table. Why? There is a section called miscellaneous in each one of those articles that explain the exact same information. - This is included in tons of GA articles, its standard to include. Just because the information is also in the prose, it does not mean it couldn't or shouldn't also be in a table.
 * I made my edits first, he reverted them despite my reasons being made clear in my captions - Your first edit in every scenario was a revert of changes that have occurred over the past two years, making them your first RR. And things like "Cleaning up" or blank are not clear such as Edit summary blank, clean up. Both of those were your first edits on a page.
 * He has at least 2 notices on his talk page of disruptive edit warring from this month alone. - One was a message that was deemed I did nothing wrong. The other is just a blanket message, from a page I made 1 edit on, making sure I knew it was under 1RR, nothing disruptive.
 * As for his statement of reverting blindly. No, I returned the Reception section to the proper place. Which he would know since that is how the style guide he is trying to wave around says to do it. - I notice you forgot to mention the actual blind reverting you did, like removing links to pages that exist because they didnt exist 2 years ago. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It isn't about major changes. It is the fact you are pointing to something you edit more than any other user in the project and then point to it to back up layouts for articles you aren't a major contributor on.
 * 2) right here is where I'm adding back in information that was removed and fixing match names by returning to the GA version. this is you changing things for your own preference including creating redirects that didn't exist prior to my edits while pointing to policies that didn't hinder this style of writing for a decade.
 * 3) It is a match name. It is a Tag Team match. A tag team is an actual team. A Tag Team match is a match that takes place between two teams. Like a Singles match is between two wrestlers. It isn't singles match, it is Singles match. Tag Team match looks better as a style than Tag team match. This was accepted in the GA review. It isn't a big deal, but to you apparently it is. I'm simply trying to keep the article consistent as every single one of the articles is written using this style throughout the body of the article as a consistent flow. You didn't know that, because you aren't a major contributor to the article.
 * 4) Your style guide doesn't say a word about the table being needed at all. The tables didn't exist in any of these articles ever. That is you trying to place your preference in the article without a policy or even the style guide to back it up. I'm pointing out its redundancy and how it wasn't needed to reach its current status as GA and/or FA. The table isn't needed when the information is in the paragraph. So I say, there isn't a policy for the table so it is up to the editor and the only established consensus is Turning Point (2008 wrestling) that suggests it isn't needed at all if the section exists in its place.
 * 5) I made changes to an article as a clean up. In your mind, any expansion of an article would be considered a revert because you are changing the article from its original version. The first revert or undo by any editor was by you. Your argument for the 2 year thing is hollow. Those edits were a revert of my edits. See how easy that is to turn around on you. I was simply undoing someone else's revert of my edits from 2 years ago. It is that simple to address that argument. I opened the general edit tab for the entire article when making my edits and went down from there. Clean up is saved in my captions. You pointing out leaving a description blank is funny because checking your contributors page shows you are guilty of the same thing. like this unexplained moving of sections that go against the style guide you are pointing to.
 * 6) Its evidence you engage in edit warring on the regular. User_talk:Galatz/Archive_2019 shows you have a history of being disruptive recently and engage in "I'm right" with even admins on the very issue we are addressing here. Like I said on your talk page, I'm fine with us handling this issue here. Looking at your history, that seems to be the only place this can be resolved as you'll keep doing things until forced to not do it. You have multiple messages telling you to stop being disruptive.
 * 7) The very link you said that by showed me moving the reception section and changing match names back to the original titles from 2014. Like I said, I knew exactly what I was doing in that edit. Perhaps, you aren't paying attention to your own claims.-- Will C  01:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) What relevance does me editing have to do with it? If its built based on discussions and consensus, the person who makes the edit is irrelevant
 * 2) Just so you know, all versions are GA versions. Articles are edited constantly, and that does not make it no longer a GA. Just because it passes GA, it does not mean there aren't other valid edits that can be made. You clear want to WP:OWN the article and think anyone who makes changes to YOUR articles are wrong.
 * 3) I understand that YOU think it should be Tag Team match and Singles match, but its tag team match and singles match. Go to singles match or tag team match and see how they are referred to there. Looking back 11 years ago (your first edit to the style guide), had it listed as tag team match . Consensus appears to be since before you have been editing that its lower case.
 * 4) Nice try, but again not my preference. I do not believe I have ever added that to any article. Just because I didn't add it does not mean I feel it should be removed. I randomly chose 3 other PW events which are GAs Backlash (2007) and SummerSlam (1988) have the table. Vengeance (2006) does not. All of the results are in prose but we have a table, I see this as no different. I created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling and you are welcome to bring your thoughts there.
 * 5) I was simply undoing someone else's revert of my edits from 2 years ago - haha that is the exact definition of a revert, per WP:EW To revert is to undo the action of another editor. Again I moved it in compliance with the Style Guide at the time I moved it, but you already knew that, so I do not understand why you would bring that up again. The SG changed 2 months after that edit.
 * 6) My editing is not in question here, you are attempting to deflect from your 4RRs
 * 7) You clearly are not reading. I stated I notice you forgot to mention the actual blind reverting you did, like removing links to pages that exist because they didnt exist 2 years ago, yet your response is about other things, so it appears you are trying to just avoid the issue and discussing other things. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Pointing to it for your edits when it doesn't have anything that back them up is problematic. Showing that you edit more than anyone else shows a conflict of interest on your part.
 * 2)I've never used the phrase my article. I said I expanded them so I know more about them than others objectively do. No one would argue that. Gonna argue with George Martin that you know more about Jon Snow than him? Probably not. I've stated repeatedly the edits made haven't improved the articles on any objective reason. The table didn't exist for 7 years.
 * 3) Show me the consensus that said for them to be styled like that. Yes, it existed like that. Most likely not due to an actual discussion, but due to someone just writing it like that by preference. So you are pointing to prose that was written by a random user without consensus and you wonder why I point out you changing things on the style guide. I love how you say you don't have a preference in this discussion but took the time to go back 11 years to find an edit by me. Beyond that, you pointed to the MOS guide and I pointed out there wasn't a specific policy to write like that. In fact there were more sections under Trademarks and Proper names that said the matches should be written a different way. Even further, you want there to be redirects and there are redirects for the names of these matches styled the exact way I had them written for 7 or more years.
 * 4) You do get that by undoing my clean up of these articles, that is de facto adding to the articles? You point out the results table and the event sections. You do know why they exist right? They don't exist due to project discussions or style guide but entirely because we couldn't get them passed notability guidelines, GA reviews, and FA reviews. Thats the entire reason the style guide exists is due to those troubles back in 2008 and 2009. “Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written.”. You point to backlash that doesn't have a format that fits the style guide, it doesn't even have a reception section. In fact, all of them don't even follow the style guide. And you are using this as a way to show that the table is needed that the style guide says nothing about?
 * 5) So you are now trying to say all of my edits were a revert of one single editor. Thats some semantics there. The format for PPVs was established in March 2014. It was the format I created and was adopted by the project all the way back then. I was there. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_91.
 * 6) It takes two to edit war and the history for both editors is looked at in this aspect. I'm the one who warned you to stop edit warring and the person who told you I was fine with coming here to do this. Opening the section doesn't make a difference if your edits are baseless.
 * 7) "As you can see by this edit summary Going back to how it was under GA review. There was a reason I designed it like this this user is just reverting back blindly." Thats what you said. The link you said it has me cleaning an article. Are you even following your own comments? I'll concede for the links to be changed to Three Way match, Tag Team match, Singles match, etc. as the redirects exist. Solves your problem with redirects and piping now. Let me guess, your preference is what really matters now?-- Will C  03:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Rajannamysore reported by User:Rockstone35 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: last stable version

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved (other than to revert the article to the last stable version before the edit war), and no one has engaged in a discussion on the talk page. The only attempt to reach out was this post on Arjayay's talkpage. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Nothing else to say here. It's possible User:Arjayay is also guilty of edit warring, I'm not entirely sure. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you at least somebody is doing the right thing of seeing facts before acting either way. Much appreciated. Rajannamysore (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )
Page:
 * and others
 * and others

User being reported:

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


 * Floris V, Count of Holland
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * John I, Duke of Brabant
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * William I, Count of Hainaut
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * Isambard Kingdom Brunel
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

is one of those editors who makes a large number of edits, on an extremely narrow breadth of topics. Their byte count contribution is firmly into the bold red, almost entirely based on the deletion of the same sections from all the biographies they can find. Their article count is fairly broad, as they apply those same edits to every article they meet. Still, everyone needs a hobby, but most importantly here, their persistence in repeating the same edits to the same articles is in clear excess of what we regard as acceptable, per WP:EDITWAR.

Surtsicna's view is that two aspects of biographies are 'trivia' and must be removed: name etymology, and charts of ancestry. Others may disagree. I have heard of a policy called 'WP:BRD', but as always, its actual existence seems doubtful. Certainly there's no evidence for it here, just reflex edit-warring and repetition.

I don't do biographies, I do engineering. So I first encountered that at Isambard Kingdom Brunel, where the origins of "Isambard" (a family name for three generations of the family and almost unknown otherwise) and "Kingdom" have long been part of the article. There has been some discussion at Talk:Isambard Kingdom Brunel, where four other editors opposed this removal – they removed it again, regardless. There is no consensus for this, merely the persistence of one editor with no respect for others, or for 3RR.

A passing mention of Uma Thurman at the Brunel talk page led to the obvious result, and they took to blanking the name etymology section there too. And when reverted, immediately went to 3RR.

Their basis for all of these removals are much the same: trivial sophistry and circular fallacies. They have requested not merely an etymology of an ancient Sanskrit name (which was already referenced), but a reference for the same name, specifically in relation to a 20th century actress. They requested not merely a peer-reviewed biography of Brunel (Brunel is infamously poorly biographised), but a peer-reviewed biography stating that such an etymology should be included in Wikipedia articles! At none of the contentious articles I can see have they attracted any support, although clearly they've managed to browbeat a number of other editors into grudging acceptance, by their sheer persistence. Editors should not work in such a way.

Looking back over the talk: archives User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 15, this is not a new issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a third concern about deletions of images as seen on User_talk:Surtsicna. PPEMES (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Uma Thurman - two reverts, not three. The content alleging the subject's connection to Hinduism was challenged by another user on the talk page, with no response for months. The sources cited there made no reference to Uma Thurman. This is obviously in contravention of WP:BLP.
 * Floris V - the four edits cited here were made in the span of three months, and only two of the four are reverts. The last replaced unsourced content with a sourced version. Again, there were no four reverts within 24 hours or anything remotely close to that.
 * John I - one revert.
 * William I - four reverts in the span of three days, two within the last 24 hours. I acknowledge that, while this does not break WP:3RR, it is not helpful, and I have therefore reverted my last revert.
 * Brunel - two reverts.
 * What you are accusing me of is not breaking the 3RR but deleting unsourced content. I do not wish to comment on your absurd analysis of my contributions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm accusing you of edit-warring, and a complete disrespect for the views of any other editors. I presume that you can count to three. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you have not presented evidence for what you are accusing me of. Breaking the 3RR means making "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." You had to include original edits (which are not reverts) and go back more than three months in time to assemble this accusation. I assume even that is easier than providing sources for the disputed content. It is appalling that a seasoned editor does not understand that the sources cited to support the claim about a living person's choice of name need to mention that person and that you have not even bothered to join the discussion on Talk:Uma Thurman, a discussion started months before any revert was made. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean the months-old discussion where had correctly pointed out that her name comes via her parents' Tibetan Buddhism. To which you replied after your reversions, in a way that made it quite clear you hadn't either read or understand a word that they'd written, and that you were still focussed on her not having a connection to Hinduism, something that no-one is claiming. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * challenged the article content and said: "It's not clear what the origin of the name is, but in this context, it is Tibetan Buddhist." The allegation that Uma Thurman's name is related to a Hindu deity was disputed by and not supported by any of the sources cited there. Yes, I did read Indigocat's comment before making the first edit to the article, which is obvious from my edit summary referring precisely to Indigocat's argument. You, on the other hand, have never bothered to take part in that discussion. What's more, you blindly reverted every single edit I made on that page, including a simplification of links and punctuation corrections. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As to Breaking the 3RR means making "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.", then that's rather the point. You are edit-warring, whilst carefully making sure that you don't break brightline 3RR. But this fools no-one, that's why this is the edit-warring noticeboard. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not even near that line, as evidenced by your evidence, nor are my actions any closer to edit-warring than yours. I, for one, have at least made an effort to join an existing talk page discussion in the biography of a living person, rather than merely reverting the removal of poorly sourced and challenged content along with entirely uncontroversial improvements to links and orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as I am mentioned. I would agree there Surtsicna has a tendency to edit warring and POV pushing over the top of good faith editors. Surtsicna's complaint that he has not broken 3R is also typical of the wikilawyering approach to using rules for purposes that are not the encyclopedia's. My particular debate with Surtsicna is not finished, but continuing painfully, mainly on this template talk. Neither of us have been heavily reverting, so no 3Rs indeed, but it is remarkable to see someone starting a round of template deletions around WP after someone raises concerns about how to work on this template, and then insists on re-deleting after I have several times asked for a bit longer so I can, as a new participant on the articles involved, tried to resolve how the templates are used. In latest discussions, Surtsicna insists I must add sourcing when I add the templates, but why would that be a demand? The templates are complex so looking at sourcing without being able to look at them just makes it harder. In talk page discussions Surtsicna uses WP:V to explain deletions, but he knows there is an on-going debate about that and no consensus. According to many editors that issue is really more of a technical issue. Surtsicna is insisting on demanding the types of in-line footnotes we normally use for blocks of texts within a box which summarizes information. If there were only that problem it seems the problem is easy to resolve, but Surtsicna does not appear to want the templates fixed for WP:V, because Surtsicna dislikes the templates for other reasons, and this is making all discussion impossible, while Surtsicna goes out and deletes. So there is a lot of talking in circles, citations from policy pages which are not in the spirit of the policies, and also generally avoiding getting to any point, or caring about consensus on matters of editorial judgement (which are the real disagreement hiding behind the supposed WP:V concern). It is not a good way to work on a wiki. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Exert yourself reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  July 25 16:58 added to sections which misrepresent the source
 * 2)  July 26 07:09 Readded those two sections which misrepresent the source plus med doses against PHARMMOS
 * 3)  July 26th, 09:01 Readded those two sections again
 * 4)  July 26th 09:06 Readded the section with drug doses again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was also warned a couple of days before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started by me July 26th 09:05 Extensive discussion on the users talk page.

Comments:


 * Let me be clear, I don't know why Doc James constantly removed materials supported by the latest medical text book deemed to be the highest level of evidence per WP:RMEDS?? --Exert yourself (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was explained multiple times both on your talk page and on the talk page of the article in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, We don't judge the medical textbook published by reliable publisher here in Wikipedia. --Exert yourself (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you canstantly moved the materials that can be immediately used in the clinical scene to the resarch section. I am citing "clinical handbook" and you're talking about them as "research"? [ref]--Exert yourself (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User just made a 4 reverts here aswell Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know but I feel it's the best way. That shows Wikipedia doesn't kick any reference out of the sight while Wikipedia includes and states them together to show their stances on one thing. Hence, their voices can be heard. --Exert yourself (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I really feel frustrated to such WP:OR. --Exert yourself (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why you removed "Acetylcysteine is effective in treating excoriation disorder (a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder) with therapeutic dosing ranges from 1200 mg - 3000 mg per day. "??? If you don't want to see dose in the article you can just remove "with therapeutic dosing ranges from 1200 mg - 3000 mg per day." rather than the entire one. Furthermore, I don't see any guideline and policy disallow the user to add such information. You also left things about qid (dose information) in cholinesterase inhibitor. [ref]  --Exert yourself (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please visit Talk:Donepezil to learn more. Per WP:RMEDS, we should use the latest evidence and the older evidence doesn't supersede the newer. Doc James decided to mix them all together [ref] and accused me of triggering edit war at Talk:Memantine. So disappointed. --Exert yourself (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. The user has also been reverting at Memantine. These are disputes over the interpretation of WP:MEDRS, and raise questions about the best therapy for various diseases. When describing approved therapies in Wikipedia's voice it requires following our rules carefully. There is no visible support for the changes by User:Exert yourself on either Talk:Donepezil or Talk:Memantine. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:80.2.20.40 reported by User:Mazewaxie (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Trish became Hellcat in season 3 and Kevin Thompson went by Zebediah Kilgrave"
 * 2)  "He’s call zebediah kill grace in the tv show have you even watched it? And Trish becomes a vigilante called Hellcat in season 3"
 * 1)  "Trish became Hellcat in season 3 and Kevin Thompson went by Zebediah Kilgrave"
 * 2)  "He’s call zebediah kill grace in the tv show have you even watched it? And Trish becomes a vigilante called Hellcat in season 3"
 * 1)  "He’s call zebediah kill grace in the tv show have you even watched it? And Trish becomes a vigilante called Hellcat in season 3"
 * 1)  "He’s call zebediah kill grace in the tv show have you even watched it? And Trish becomes a vigilante called Hellcat in season 3"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Jessica Jones (TV series) */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

This IP is almost certainly the same person that got blocked on many accounts for sockpuppetry. Also I have requested the page to be protected. Maze waxie  10:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's definitely the same person that used User:Hhggtg3279 and User:DrChaos56 amongst others. -- Maze  waxie  10:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that now as I found out that User:Hhggtg3279 had similar edits of that IP. Sheldybett (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now he's insulting User:Sheldybett. -- Maze  waxie  10:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed that threat. Sheldybett (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for 3RR violation by User:Alexf. Jessica Jones (TV series) has been semiprotected four days. Notice there is a sock case at Sockpuppet investigations/Hhggtg3279. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1009:B11E:783C:E587:4F17:6475:C23D reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Semiprotections)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Season 5 (1976) */"
 * 2)  "/* Season 5 (1976) */"
 * 3)  "/* Season 2 (1972–1973) */"
 * 4)  "/* Season 2 (1972–1973) */"
 * 5)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 6)  "/* Season 1 (1972) */"
 * 7)  "/* Season 2 (1972–1973) */"
 * 8)  "/* Season 5 (1976) */"
 * 9)  "/* Season 5 (1976) */"
 * 10)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 11)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 12)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 13)  "/* Season 1 (1972 - 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 14)  "/* Season 1 (1972 - 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 15)  "/* Season 2 (1972–1973) */"
 * 16)  "/* Season 1 (1972 - 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 17)  "/* Season 4 (1974–1975 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 18)  "/* Season 5 (1975-1976) */"
 * 19)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 20)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 21)  "/* External links */"
 * 22)  "/* External links */"
 * 23)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 4 (1974–1975 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 2)  "/* Season 5 (1975-1976) */"
 * 3)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978 2019 Robot - PBS) */"
 * 4)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 5)  "/* External links */"
 * 6)  "/* External links */"
 * 7)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 4)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 6 (1977–1978) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on WGBH-TV. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Zoom (1999 TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps adding unsourced content about a reboot. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Zoom (1972 TV series), Zoom (1999 TV series) and WGBH-TV have all been semiprotected two days by User:MelanieN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:126.2.170.69 reported by User:Kanguole (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC) (revert of )
 * 2) 04:26, 25 July 2019‎ (UTC) (revert of )
 * 3) 07:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (revert of )
 * 4) 20:38, 25 July 2019‎ (UTC) (revert of )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Kanguole 22:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. Long term warring by a variety of IPs. If you want to discuss your edits, leaving an edit summary in Japanese isn't much help for other users who don't speak the language. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)