Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394

User:Empirical research reported by User:Neutrality (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version: Last stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:48, July 23, 2019
 * 2) 22:21, July 23, 2019
 * 3) 20:05, July 24, 2019
 * 4) 05:53, July 25, 2019
 * 5) 08:53, July 25, 2019
 * 6) 10:48, July 25, 2019
 * 7) 03:33, July 26, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, July 24, 2019; continued to revert four times afterward

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A discussion was started by ; I added some content as well; the user's only comments on the talk page have been long, rambling statements containing lots of personal attacks. Neutralitytalk 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments: Very disruptive new editor; lots of aggressive edit summaries (started off with "Debunking Bull Shit" and graduated to calling other editors' challenges to his/her content "vandalism"). Neutralitytalk 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. User made eight reverts since 24 July; lots of personal attacks and incoherent comments; incorrect charges of vandalism. Might be someone who has limited ability in English. In File:Hierarchies of evidence.jpg the description field is: (sic).  EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TomA113 reported by User:Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (Result: Declined/Duplicate )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User:Unnamed12 reported by User:El_C (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 19:39, 24 July 2019


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:21, 27 July 2019
 * 2) 20:26, 27 July 2019
 * 3) 20:28, 27 July 2019
 * 4) 20:30, 27 July 2019


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 20:27, 27 July 2019


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


 * 20:37, 27 July 2019

User has already been blocked for violating 3RR on the same article a few days ago. Now they violate it again, without using edit summaries or any attempt whatsoever to communicate. El_C 00:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TomA113 reported by User:Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (Result: Blocked 31 hours for disruptive edits.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Changing Recent to Final multiple times Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * N.J.A.  &#124; talk  12:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Campurrianan reported by User:S0091 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 908172402 by S0091 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Write about VOX and include it in the "far-right" is absolutely fake and a lack of real information."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 908128275 by Aranya (talk)"
 * 4)  "The information published is FAKE. VOX is NOT far-right"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* wrong information */ Please provide sources"


 * Comments:

Warnings were left on user's talk page and in edit summaries:, ,. Editor did leave a note on the talk page after 3rd revert but has not engaged in the discussion nor have they provided sources to back up their claims. They simply just reverted back to their preferred version. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:Campurrianan has indeed broken 3rr on Far-right terrorism in Spain, but the stuff he is reverting may not belong in the article. Though Vox (Spanish political party) is certainly described by some as far right, as you can tell by reading the sources in Vox's own Wikipedia article, why is Vox being mentioned in an article on terrorism? Vox is a political party that has won some seats here and there. Nobody says that Vox is blowing things up or killing people, and no sources call them terrorists. Due to the confusing situation, it may be best to fully protect the article with the defamatory material about Vox removed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment.  I was following the reasoning  stated for their reverts which seemed to be focused on Vox being categorized as "far-right".  After a couple or so reverts they did take the correct action by at least placing on note on the talk page but their reasoning to me lacked.  When I looked at the main article I saw there could be room for discussion on their point and that is what I was hoping for but they reverted again without discussion.  If they stated  the issue was Vox being a categorized as a terrorist group, I would have delved into that.  I would still like to hear from them but in the meantime, Ed, if you could put a note on the article's talk page with your thoughts that would be helpful so it is documented there and others can respond. I do not a have any attachment.  It was simply the lack of communication for me.   S0091 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Campurrianan is warned against further violations of the edit warring policy. Users:S0091 and User:Laterthanyouthink are reminded that including mention of Vox (Spanish political party) in an article about terrorism needs reliable sources which connect that party with terrorism. Otherwise it might be considered libellous. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Cdneh95 reported by User:CASSIOPEIA (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: GSP and DP

Comments:


 * . This is the user's second block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:219.73.20.22 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ this is accurately reflects the sources, which specifically state that Bea House is not on campus and not owned by the university"
 * 2)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live at Bea House */"
 * 3)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live at Cardinal Bea House */ on directly contradicts the majority of the sources"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 908591663 by 8.20.65.4 (talk)it was explained in detail in my edit summaries"
 * 5)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ this is correct, whereas the previous header was not as Bea House is not on the campus or owned by the university or controlled by the university per the sources cited in this section"
 * 6)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ abusive is far less inflammatory Predatory rises to the level of POV and wikipedia encourages us to write conservatively"
 * 7)  "moving this section to help mitigate problems with undue weight and POV"
 * 8)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ this text contains no information about the subject of the article at all Also, according to the sources Bea House is not on the campus, is not owned by the university, and is not managed by the university this language is highly POV and must be removed"
 * 9)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live in Bea House */ This text also contains absolutely zero information about the subject of the article"
 * 10)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ The sources themselves, despite their headlines, say almost nothing about the university, and literally nothing that is encyclopaedic the bodies of the sources also clearly indicate that the house is not on the campus, owned by the university, or controlled by the univerisy"
 * 11)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ Predatory? Do they take down dear at night with their sharp claws and eat them raw? Let's be NPOV and say abusive."
 * 12)  "this issue is so tangential to the university that if it belongs on the article at all (which is very dubious) it should be down here to avoid issue with undue weight and relevance to the actual subject of the article."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 908586826 by 219.73.20.22 (talk) sorry"
 * 14)  "this conforms to the information that is actually in the body of the sources"
 * 1)  "/* Abusive priests sent to live on campus */ Predatory? Do they take down dear at night with their sharp claws and eat them raw? Let's be NPOV and say abusive."
 * 2)  "this issue is so tangential to the university that if it belongs on the article at all (which is very dubious) it should be down here to avoid issue with undue weight and relevance to the actual subject of the article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 908586826 by 219.73.20.22 (talk) sorry"
 * 4)  "this conforms to the information that is actually in the body of the sources"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * FWIW, the PDF here is the current official GU campus map. Cardinal Bea House is marked BEA, and it is quite clearly "on" the campus; not even near the periphery, but near the very center, one building away from the Quad. And obviously, all the citations in the actual article say that Cardinal Bea House is "on" campus. Besides being a clear 3RR violation, it's blatant POV pushing to whitewash an embarrassing fact, by changing a cited fact into an obvious howler. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First, that is a primary source and you are conducting what is technically original research. Second, we have to go by what reliable secondary sources say and the majority of them say that that Cardinal Bea House is near the campus, not owned by the university, and not managed by the university. I get at what you are saying. But don't try to make me look like some kind of POV pushing monster because I am applying the rules on sourcing in a reasonable and conventional way. 219.73.20.22 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. It appears that the Cardinal Bea house belongs to the Jesuit order but is not technically part of Gonzaga University. I hope that the editors will discuss on the talk page to reach agreement on how best to word that. To describe its location as 'on campus' should probably come from reliable sources and not from users interpreting a map. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

181.225.96.217 reported by User:Christogol (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: [diff]

Comments:

The IP address has been suppressing white ethnic figures in Colombia from the article without having obtained any consensus on the discussion page. If you review the history, since November 2018 try to make these modifications unilaterally frequently to this page by altering the statistical data. I request that in case the user have re-edited, that edition be reverted and protected, and their contributions be restricted.. Christogol (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . The IP hasn't made any edits since July 22, at which point he made six consecutive edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Simtropolitan (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: One of the few contemporary usages of the term with a similar context would be the plantation territories of Maine, which function as a form of municipality.

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

Comments:

This user has refused to support their application of WP:No original research to this revision, and has refused to address their reasoning. While consensus should be found on an article talk page, this user has made what appear to be WP:Disruptive edits, and as such I have notified them that I have found these as such on their user talkpage, only for them to remove them twice or start a different conversation on my own, without addressing their reasoning,. --Simtropolitan (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simtropolitan has persistently refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page where it can be openly discussed by all interested editors. Instead, Simtropolitan persists in posting the discussion on my user talk page where it is not appropriate, and where other editors cannot enter the discussion. I have repeatedly asked Simtropolitan] to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but Simtropolitan responds only with accusations and attacks. —Dilidor (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * . The edit war occurred on July 26. Neither editor has discussed the dispute on the article Talk page., attempting to discuss the dispute on the user's Talk page is not optimal. , don't use all caps in edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , respectfully- if I went ahead and misrepresented WP:Reliable sources as original research, and then refused to offer any reason for doing so, is that not an example of disruptive editing? Should doing so automatically justify talk on an article's page rather than with the associated user in the matter, as per WP:Disruptive editing § Dealing with disruptive editors? --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:JzG reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not personally involved in the dispute, but I would note that JzG is continuing to revert well after discussion began on the talk page.

Comments:


 * I'm not sure we really need to concern ourselves with giving EW warnings to an administrator with >10 years on the project and >100k contributions. But if this is going to be the user's response to someone pointing out that they just hit 4RR, then this seems like the obvious next step.  G M G  talk  14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * These are two different edits. One is essentially unpiping copyright infringement from the weasel term "without respect for copyright" (two reverts), the third edit is a change not a revert, and the fourth is a revert different to the first two, on the basis that "often" is a neutral term which implies nothing about the proportion, whereas both "many" and "some" do carry an implication about the proportion. That's under discussion with the article owners at talk per WP:BRD. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very disappointed, very. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there an exception in 3RR for repeatedly reverting multiple editors so long as it's not exactly the same revert?  G M G  talk  14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also a bit disingenuous to argue BRD when your preferred method is apparently bold, revert, revert, revert, discuss. And that's an entirely different article also in the last 24 hours.  G M G  talk  14:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how I read it, obviously. There's discussion on talk, but the edit to "some cases" implied to me acceptance of the unpiped usage, at which point, we move on to try to establish common ground over the precise way of characterising that. That's not easy when one user persistently argues that unless every single country in the world signs the Berne Convention, you can't say that copyright violation is illegal, even when courts have found that it is, in this specific case, but we're used to that from this article. I think that it needs many more eyes, actually. It's currently dominated by a very small number of people, at least some of whom have a fringe view on copyright. I find it bizarre that I am attacked as some sort of capitalist tool, when I use Sci-Hub all the time myself. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a clear 3RR violation. Your claim that the reverts are different is irrelevant to the plain language of the policy, and, in any event, all of your reverts are connected to each other. The edit-warring is bad enough, but your lack of insight into your conduct and your misunderstanding of policy is, in my view, more troubling. I realize it will look to some like I'm being too lenient because you're an admin, but I think I would do the same for any long-term constructive editor. I suggest you revert your latest change (that would include of course the other editor's correction of your typo). If you do that and you promise not to edit the article until a clear consensus emerges, I will not block you. In the meantime, other administrators may take whatever action they believe is appropriate, even if it differs from mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you see it that way, I accept your judgment. I will walk away I guess. That article really does need more input. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I see you have walked away from the Talk page as well, that is your decision, not one of my "requirements". I remind you, though, that you still need to self-revert on the article. I am not going to do it for you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To what, though? There are intervening edits, including edits by others reinstating the same text. As above, I honestly thought the latter edits were an incremental change, so I am obviously looking at it all wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I genuinely struggle to understand how a user with nearly ten thousand edits to administrator noticeboards doesn't understand what edit warring is.  G M G  talk  15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with reverting to earlier text as it suggests there is no infringement contradicted two sentences later. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please give it a rest. You've made your point., you're correct. I thought going back to the edit just before you would "fix" it, but it wouldn't. In addition, among the disputants, I don't see a consensus for "often" or "in some cases", and I'm not going to pick the "correct" version. As far as I'm concerned, those who wish to should continue discussing the dispute on the article Talk page. I see nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Depressing. I'm just trying to do the right thing, but I keep forgetting that this article is essentially religious. Sorry you got dragged in. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. See V policy. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Shall we just consider this as a warning has been given and received through this discussion and move on? N.J.A.  &#124; talk  02:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:193.152.118.206 reported by User:Willbb234 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Release history */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 908855432 by Willbb234 (talk) it is sourcered."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 908855014 by Willbb234 (talk) it is. Check houndread of single articles. The release on the article is not sourcered"
 * 1)  "/* Release history */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 908855432 by Willbb234 (talk) it is sourcered."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 908855014 by Willbb234 (talk) it is. Check houndread of single articles. The release on the article is not sourcered"


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


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


 * Comments:

An initial warning was given by User:Ifnord, but a different IP (which I believe is the same person) reverted once more. Nonetheless, the IP being reported reverted either myself or User:ANode a total of 4 times, violating WP:3RR. I asked the user to talk about the matter on the talk page through my revert, but they did not do so. The content they wanted to change to was not backed by a WP:RS (amazon.com) and the user did not add it as a reference, even after they were asked to by ANode. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and the IP still continues to input their changes while ignoring all warnings given. They apparently believed Amazon is reliable "just because it's used on other articles". aNode   (discuss)  17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week CU block by User:Bbb23. See also Sockpuppet investigations/MileyCy 1Fan/Archive. The page remains under PC protection. It seems that the problem has been going on since August 2018. Why not consider long-term semiprotection of Cyrus-related articles? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by 185.41.130.3 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: GSP and DP

Comments:

User reverts my edits regarding 2018 updated figures of the Human Globalization Index, Legatum Prosperity Index, and Corruption Perceptions Index. Furthermore he removes mentions of the Baltic states, which make up the classic definition of Mitteleuropa, along with Romania and Ukraine from the definition, yet keeps Croatia and Serbia on the lists. He then tells me a consensus must be reached regarding my edits, yet no consensus was ever reached at all regarding incorporating Croatia and Serbia into the definition in the first place. If Croatia and Serbia are to be included in the definition, it is only fair that the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) along with Romania and Ukraine stay as well, otherwise all should be removed, including Serbia and Croatia as it appears biased and one-sided. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

. KIENGIR, you need to base your objection on something, anything. If no one objects to the IP's edit, it becomes part of the consensus per WP:SILENCE. El_C 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, this report is a waste of precious time of users and administrators, since you initiated clearly an edit warring after reverting the third time when the discussion in the talk has been already ongoing,.


 * Rearding what was before, you initiated with 3 edits, , where parts were also reverted not just by me but another user , after you again reverted and made 17 consecutive edits , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , this was as well reverted along me by the same user  warning you about WP:BRD....after you again did not stopped , ,  and I legally reverted you and warned to enter to the talk page, follow WP:BRD reach WP:CONSENSUS....you entered there, but ignored these policies and started a clear edit warring (the two diffs shown in the former pharagraph), despite the warnings. If two other users already warned, reverted you and asked for WP:BRD, you should have stopped...a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
 * , because of an edit conflict I could react to this report, because I just noticed...please read carefully my answer you have missed that also another user reverted the IP and warned him for WP:BRD, thus WP:SILENCE does not work here, since we immediately reacted to the IP's edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Fair enough. But there will need to be substantive discussion on the article talk page. IP, it has only been 2 days since you initiated the discussion. Give it some more time. Please leave the status quo ante in place until that discussion is concluded. El_C 18:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, I pinged the other user already in the talk who contested the IP for discussion. I am unable to follow your request regarding status quo ante, since as mentioned above, the IP already re-reverted the last stable version I set yesterday to its preferred version (I won't touch it, but at least you should warn/inform the IP of proper application of BRD and drop improper accusations against me ("vandalism/bias"), etc., it is strange that I am warned but he/she is left without nothing, despite the violations) Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
 * Yes, the IP is warned as well to shape up, sorry if that was not made clear. El_C 18:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No one has yet to respond to the IP on the talk page. I realize there were explanatory edit summaries against their edits, but there will need to be substantive discussion on the article talk page, also, or else those objections could be viewed as having been abandoned. El_C 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , to your attention, the pinged user responded.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC))

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:AntonSamuel (Result: Stale and no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Comments: The re-added segment was the target of a lengthy discussion on the Rojava talk page including a Requests for comment discussion, resulting in a consensus among the editors that participated in the discussion, with the sole dissenting voice being User:عمرو بن كلثوم. The discussion was later automatically closed. See discussion here: &. Now the editor has gone against the consensus that was reached and added his segment again. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Stale and no violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what you refer to with "Stale and no violation"? Should I create a new post that includes all previous reverts that the used made quite a while ago to restore the same edit? Since this was regarding a violation of a clear consensus of a discussion the editor participated in, detailed in the talk page links I provided, would this be a matter better suited to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page? AntonSamuel (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said, and, no, you should not create a new report here. Their last edit before the July 29 edit was on May 31, 2019, over two months ago. I have no idea as to its suitability for ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've brought up the matter there instead. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:JPratas reported by 191.34.187.54 (Result: already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments: The user repeatedly refuses to maintain the status quo ante while discussion continues. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

. Page is already protected (by me), so the edit war seems to have stopped, for now. El_C 05:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Twentius reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 909114159 by Muboshgu (talk). This is propaganda and still alleged (unfair to Russian people and its government), not established by facts but merely accusations / propaganda. I would be careful with neutrality."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 909100201 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 3)  "Make this article more Neutral."
 * 4)  "This article should neither be Pro-Trump nor Anti. So many claims and assertions not yet proven nor backed in court."
 * 5)  "For Neutrality, added NPOV template."
 * 1)  "For Neutrality, added NPOV template."


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


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


 * Comments:

Discretionary sanctions are in effect on post-1932 United States politics pages. This user has violated WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

. In fairness, you violated 1RR, too. The edits are clearly disruptive and outside established consensus for that article, so I used my discretion and only blocked the reported user, but the nominating user is cautioned as well about reporting a 1RR violation while violating 1RR themselves(!). El_C 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the edit summary, but I still am not sure that reverting the user is exempt from 1RR just because they are now blocked. Perhaps this is so, but I am unaware of this. El_C 06:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I meant to more deliberately cite WP:3RRNO #3, – Muboshgu (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * my understanding is that this part of 3RRNO deals with block evasion (and bans), which is not the case here. El_C 06:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't too liberally mix up "block" and "ban", which are not the same. That article is contentious, and so discretionary sanctions apply. I was too involved to make the block myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm too hung up on procedure here — there's no argument that their edits were pretty much plainly disruptive (hence, my discretion). El_C 06:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , procedure is good to follow. Thank you for using your discretion. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:169.232.85.29 reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Despite repeated requests to discuss on the article's Talk page by myself and User:ElKevbo, User:169.232.85.29 did not do so and continues to revert despite being warned about edit-warring and WP:3RR. Contributor321 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Once again removing eternal link to previously discussed unreliable source. Undid revision 908595770 by 78.144.92.215 (talk)."
 * 2)  "See talk. Undid revision 908870097 by VQuakr (talk)"
 * 3)  "Material removed a month ago due to dubious sourcing is not to be restored while currently under contentious discussion. Use the talk page first."

Continuation of edit warring on the same (1RR-restricted) article, content, and behavior as that led to their block in late June,, which they picked back up on basically immediately after their block ie. VQuakr (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Notified: . VQuakr (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is bordering on ridiculous. By the standard you want to use, I could cite you for edit warring here and here. It is already apparent that the issue is contentious, and a discussion has begun, but you chose to make an extensive edit anyway. My edit only removed the material you newly added; I did not remove the link that IP user added that was the initial impetus for the discussion. I note that you have also chosen not to bother responding on the talk page, but instead make an unwarranted accusation of "continuation of edit warring". Why? Cambial Yellowing(❧) 09:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not "newly added" any material or made any extensive edits recently; I have merely contested your blanket deletions. I consider my attempts to resolve this on the talk page as substantial, actually - your suggestion that I haven't used the talk page is trivially falsifiable. VQuakr (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - you responded after I wrote this response. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , . VQuakr (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevance? To all of these I responded, but all of which you made after you reverted my reversion of the addition of the disputed material. You did this without joining the discussion on the talk page started in June. After the discussion had resumed, you unilaterally decided to revert significantly more of the disputed material, without waiting for any response. Here you make a reference to the 1RR restriction, which you sidestepped by making your reversion edits of the same source material 33 hours apart. My initial reversion was not of a logged-in user, and furthermore was almost certainly a blocked user whom I note you discussed the article with on your talk page in response to their canvassing. Cambial Yellowing</i>(❧) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are being nonsensical. My two edits to the article in last month have zero content overlap; they are related only in the sense that they are both examples of my contesting your proposed changes. Taken together they are still a small, precision partial revert of your recent work on the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

. 1RR has not been violated (reverting IPs is not included in the GS/SW mandate), although I caution editors about this escalating into an full-fledged edit war. Please use the article talk page (or other dispute resolution resources) to resolve this dispute. Thank you. El_C 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SWAGnificient reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: This is a bit of an unusual case. While no 3RR violations have been made, this user is tendentiously trying to force a point of view in an article when longstanding consensus is against this. Moreover, he is citing a thread from months ago that decidedly does not provide consensus for this change (in fact, he was the only user supporting it). The user is now insulting anyone who disagrees with him as an "unobjective fanboy" and vandalized my user page. It seems he has a clear agenda and is not going to stop. I'm frankly not sure what board to report this to but I think his behavior is worth examining. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * the user who reported me has one problem. he's and unobjective fanboy. he likes (american) football and he wants to live in a fantasy world where everyone loves (american) football. this is not the case. as an american living in romania at the moment (also lived in germany and the UK) i can safely assert and declare american football is nigh non existent in these sections of the world. i've also talked with collegues from india, myanmar, kenya and other european countries and the response is the same. the sport is non existent. heck they only know tom brady as the partner of giselle bundchen. so what the issue of me stating THE OBVIOUS FACT that the sport is not popular outside the United States? expecially since i can provided MULTIPLE SOURCES that state the same thing? SWAGnificient (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You really need to re-read the thread because literally everything you said has been refuted there. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * by . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo reported by User:JG66 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (My removing unsourced music genres]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: As mentioned in my comment with my first edit, I was removing the unsourced genres as Resistthewiki69 had done in the past. R69's attempts were reverted each time by Carliertwo, in November 2017 and in April 2018. Carliertwo appears to have added the second of the two genres, neo-psychedelia, in April 2016. In April 2015, they reinstated the first genre and removed the hidden message ("!-- In order to add genres to an infobox, they must be cited in-article by reputable sources."), which a previous editor had added. Same again in July 2015 when a third editor got involved. Carliertwo clearly edit-wars repeatedly over this issue at Dear Prudence. It's a content-based edit war but they maintain that no sources are needed to support the content they want to retain.

I don't see any point in continuing the discussion at talk:Dear Prudence and I didn't see much point in starting one either, to be honest, given the situation over the past four or more years. JG66 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've asked a discussion at the talk of the article as they had started a Genre War; it is currently going now. I explained my view, they explained theirs. I was about to let them decide to do what is the best for the article, as so far I have added very little content at that page. Carliertwo (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not start a genre war. I, like a few editors before me, simply removed unsourced genres from the article infobox.
 * To the admin responding to this report, respectfully, I'd ask that some action is taken against this editor. They've spent years giving others the same treatment as I've received over the same issue, and I struggle to believe the behaviour would be confined to one article. Now that a report has actually been filed, they've done a complete u-turn – the unsourced genres have gone and they claim to be interested in "what is the best for the article". So, as someone who's not at all experienced with this AN, I'm wondering: do we – can we – just play up like this and then act vaguely collegial when someone can be bothered to put in the time to bring it here? JG66 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can I please have some attention on this. Other reports have been filed and taken up by an admin, but this one seems to be roundly ignored each time. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:FinnCutiepie reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cognissonance reported by User:Mclarenfan17 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cognissonance seems to be completely unwilling or unable to accept that other editors are capable of editing or improving the article in any way&mdash;even when those edits are clearly cases of copy-editing aimed at improving the clarity and cohesion of the article such as moving the text from a passive voice to an active voice. Some of this feels alarmingly like ownership behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the diffs above seem to relate to different areas of the article, so I don't think a breach of 3RR has occurred. Looks like a content dispute to me, which you should work through on the talk page before escalating. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Join Sags reported by User:Nice4What (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Editing warring on my user page in response to a 3RR warning ( and ) and at another user's talk page ( and ).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned by two editors)

Comments:


 * Looks like the user was just blocked by an admin. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Randykitty. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: )
Pages: ,

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Jill Stein (article covered by DS):
 * 1)  17 July
 * 2)  17 July
 * 3)  21 July
 * 4)  21 July
 * 5)  21 July
 * 6)  5 August
 * 7)  5 August
 * 8)  5 August
 * 9)  5 August - 3RR violation

Tulsi Gabbard (article covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD):
 * 1)  21 February
 * 2)  21 February (1RR violation - self-reverted after warning)
 * 3)  21 February (a different issue)
 * 4)  21 February (second 1RR violation of the day - made after the warning for the first 1RR violation - a second warning was made on the talk page, but no self-revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jill Stein warnings: (17 July warning),  (5 august warning - SR responded, saying he refuses to self-revert). Tulsi Gabbard warnings: Made on the talk page with pings.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * SashiRolls has a history on the Jill Stein page: The editor was "topic banned from Jill Stein and related pages for six months" in September 2016. In the case filed by Tryptofish, SashiRolls engaged in edit-warring and ignored multiple warnings about violations of edit-warring policy, ultimately leading to a 6-month block. Other relevant sanctions include a 1-week ban in June 2019 for personal attacks and battleground behavior and an indefinite ban which was lifted in November 2018 with the disclaimer, "there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * SS has a long history of uncivil, bullying behaviour all throughout AP2. They are well-known for copyright violation on Jill Stein and for misrepresenting sources (cf. 3 recent examples given below). Between the first bold edit and the second edit on 5 Aug I went to recover the reference SS had deleted in their haste on 23 July (leaving a sentence unreferenced).  In the six minutes it took me to validate one edit and go dig up the ref in another section, SS had already disrupted my work by reverting. (NB:  they were in such a hurry they left "nowiki" tags in the entry). This is their standard strategy, disrupt ASAP to control the text of entries they seem to think they "own", because they have fought off any other editor.  In summary, the first two edits on 5 Aug are in fact a single bold edit (conflicted due to the disruptive strategy).  Snooogans has not discussed on the Talk Page with regard to removing the three unnecessary wikitext references to the Daily Beast nor concerning the misleading use of a clickbait headline to source BLP material rather than the more careful text in the actual article cited. (The language they use is not supported at all in the article, only in the muckraking headline, whereas the verb I used is used twice in the article.) This is pretty clear cut, I am at 2RR, maximum 3RR (if one accepts their disruptive edit 6 minutes after I started editing the page, while I was digging up their lost reference for them).  They, on the other hand, are at 3RR, without any doubt. They are also without any doubt in violation of WP:CIV on multiple occasions starting with this  section.  I apologize to administrators that SS prefers to waste your time rather than discuss the issues on the talk page and follow BRD. (Funny how they have time to try to get me blocked, but not to check they haven't deleted references by mistake, misread an article (as here, here, here or on the present page), or left nowiki tags in their text in their haste to disrupt...) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Further data: SS has made 4005 reverts on en.wp (17% of their contributions).  I have made 220 (2% of my contributions). 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your logic of reverts is backwards and wrong. Hypothetically speaking it could be 2 percents of your edit reversions is from edit wars and theirs is from fighting vandalism...just one way it is a false equation. You also don't have to get to 3 reverts for it to be an edit war, past behavior and blocks can be taken into account. I don't say that is needed here just pointing out two very bad points of logic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... 62 appearances at noticeboards from the looks of it.   is that smoke?  Think there's a fire?   I would recommend paying specific attention to the misrepresentation diffs given and the copyvio of the Daily Beast the very same day it was published (Yashar Ali).  In the specific case here, each time I provided different text, trying to respond to their complaints left in edit summaries.  Each time they reverted to exactly the same demonstrably mis-formatted text still sourced to a headline (but which has been entirely unsourced for two weeks prior to my intervention).  Also, you should be aware of the authorship on the page.  Also, check out the revert patterns of the reporter/prosecutor here (navigate at that link by searching for "undid revision"). I actually know what I'm talking about concerning Snoog.  His methods are known. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The author of the page is irrelevant. I think you are defensive and my comment wasn't to put you on the defensive just that those aren't nec a good justification for the reverts. My suggestion is focus not on the contributor but the merit of your edits, the spots will show themselves in due time once that happens. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I got your message on my TP, thanks for letting me know your comments above weren't aimed at me. (I'll admit I'd misuderstood them as being directed at me. ^^)  Rather than feeling that defensive, I'm actually feeling more like pointing out the obvious: in the "revert patterns or the reporter/prosecutor" diff provided above, please look through the 30 tokens of (reverted) and the 48 tokens of (Undid revision).  Count the editors, and notice the names.  That tells you a lot about SS's collaborative habits.  Here, the question is: did I revert any new text that Snoogans added to the article at any time today... other than the &lt;nowiki&gt;Daily Beast&lt;nowiki&gt;, the answer is no.  SS on the other hand reverted each new formulation I presented (responding explicitly to their concerns). They stopped at 3RR to bring it here, then disappeared, once they were sure I would be busy defending myself. As you say you do not have to violate 3RR to get sanctioned. The admins could certainly give SS a lifetime achievement award...


 * Ive been on the receiving end of one of Snoogans long term revert wars before and it gets so old. I don’t see any attempt by Snoogans to gain consensus on the talk pages. Why are reverts from February even being discussed here? This is a bad faith attempt to get Sashi sanctioned. It is incredible to see how Snoog can continue to behave like this. There are many, many examples of Snoog edit warring but never exceeding 3RR to get their preferred version to stick.  Mr Ernie (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Hari-kiri Te Kanawa reported by User:Cassianto (Result: No violation, protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. You need four, not three, reverts in order to violate 3RR. El_C 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I wonder how much more you actually know than you're making out.  Cassianto Talk  22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? El_C 22:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you know.  Cassianto Talk  22:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I did, I wouldn't bother asking. Please try to assume good faith. You listed three reverts, you need four to violate 3RR — what is unclear about that? El_C 22:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You asking proves nothing. I have AGF but it's been shot to bits by your administrative incompetence. Any fool can see that this was a sock on a mission to war their version into place.  If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then guess what...   Cassianto Talk  23:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, file an SPI, if you must. I'm not willing to make the determination that the new account is EEng. El_C 23:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What, to then have you appear into view like Superman with a chip on his shoulder? No thanks.  Cassianto Talk  23:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, this interaction is over. Good evening.  Cassianto Talk  23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? If you think I want to to even remotely involve myself in that SPI you are sadly mistaken. El_C 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Happypaper reported by User:Adam9007 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 909518317 by John from Idegon (talk) Read the description of the video it gives full acess to the wikipedia article by Happypaper"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 909516926 by Adam9007 (talk) The links are needed for the Fight song as it is its own fight song that was written for the school and not a copy of a college song as it is unique. False Copyright infringement as it is my recording of the fight song and im giving this fair use also the revision undid corrections to the Principal and Superintendent! If you'd like click the fight song link and in the description of the video it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 909514559 by John from Idegon (talk) False Copyright infringement as it is my recording of the fight song and im giving this fair use also the revision undid corrections to the Principal and Superintendent! If you'd like click the fight song link and in the description of the video it gives fair use as i made the video!!"


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


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


 * Comments:

User keeps reverting and is seemingly ignoring concerns about his edits. User has strictly speaking violated 3RR here. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor is clearly new, but just as clearly not listening. I've reverted again, but now I'm at 3rr. John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And he's just made another reversion. Adam9007 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Errejay reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result:)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I and another editor were both reverted multiple times by Errejay. I had reached out on the article talk page and the user's personal talk page, after which the reversions continued to happen and my request to start a discussion were ignored. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

. This happened over a week ago. That having been said, Errejay's responses to the dispute were underwhelming to say the least. Their expanded version lacks citations and fails Wikipedia style and format conventions. Please feel free to relist if this edit war continues. El_C 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * They are continuing to edit war and ignore the messages about reaching consensus on the talk page. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1011:B00B:48C9:38D9:726C:BB19:37A reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Multiple editors have asked this IP to remove puffery from lede and start by adding non-puff RSed material to body. Tom94022 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected article one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:TeeVeeed reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Manifesto: req. rm of double-metion and ref. sorry" (which did not revert the editor's edit but removed the content moved to another part of the article by me)
 * 2)  "/* Manifesto */ I thought we agreed about this content? If not my bad and back to TP"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 909651409 by General Ization (talk) okay well you said to look down and I did and I don't see where this was discussed here? TP?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 909651001 by General Ization (talk) let's discuss on the talk page please"
 * 5)  "in lede"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 3)   "/* August 2019 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 8chan calaim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 2)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 3)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 4)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 5)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 6)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 7)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 8)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 9)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 10)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 11)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 12)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
 * 13)   "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"


 * Comments:
 * I'm going to pleasd not guilty here. I made a mistake thinking that what the edit-warring complainer said was in the edit summaries and said so. Also the complaining editor had numerous "reasons" besides my mistake of duplicating content for not liking 8chan and not wanting to highlight that 8chan's owner said that they did not post anything from the killer.--So I was not sure what the complaner's problem was with my edit. Is this resolved now? OP demanded that I rv and I did.TeeVeeed ([[User

talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also a quote from the complainer here "I don't think any of us are particularly concerned about appearing to be critical of 8chan at this point, and I'm not sure the CEO's claim is especially credible (or even important)." I have a problem with this kind of thing sneaking into the projectTeeVeeed (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that has absolutely nothing to do with this report concerning your edit warring (since there was never any effort to remove the information from the body of the article, only the duplication you introduced in the article lede), and secondly, please stop referring to me as the "complainer." "Reporter" or General Ization will do just fine. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

. You violated 3RR, which your comments above do not address. Please don't do that again. I understand the article brings up a lot of emotions, but you still need to edit by the rules. El_C 21:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not intentionally violate 3rr. (1) It was demanded on my Talk Page to immediately undo one of my edits. (2) It was unclear to me what was meant by "duplicated content" and we had agreed on the article Talk Page to take the disputed content out of the lede. so ONE of my alleged 3rrs was a mistake I guess, since I thought that we had both made an error and taken the content completely OUT of the (other) section. It was NOT even a revert--I thought I was fixing a deletion of content that had not been discussed.TeeVeeed (talk)
 * Intention aside, 3RR was violated. Which is a problem. Please just try to be more careful in the future. When in doubt, stop editing the article and discuss on a talk page. Thank you. El_C 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -Revision as of 06:19, 5 August 2019
 * 2)  - Revision as of 22:28, 6 August 2019
 * 3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cross&diff=next&oldid=909679811[ - Revision as of 22:35, 6 August 2019
 * 4)  - Latest revision as of 22:55, 6 August 2019 ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While one edit is just outside the 24-hour range, WP:EDITWAR considers that gaming the system or showing a clear pattern of edit-warring behavior is actionable. I would also note that while policy allows an exemption for "clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons", this editor is edit-warring based on his objectively inaccurate perception of BLP, which does not contain the blanket prohibition he claims it does. Indeed, this very editor is in the midst of a discussion about this exact thing at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, demonstrating this is in no way a settled issue or "clear". In the meantime, he is edit-warring to revert longstanding non-violative status quo.Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , good-faith usage of BLP exception. Removal of a child's name is within the scope of WP:BLPPRIVACY and qualifies for exemption., your best course of action is to show, on the article's talk page, that the name is so widely published in multiple sources that the privacy exemption no longer applies. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding quickly, C.Fred. The existing citation is that of the parent announcing it on a TV talk show to millions of people. I could certainly add four or five magazine and newspaper citations encompassing millions more. In all seriousness I ask: If I supply, say, four additional citations indicating that the name is that widely published, may I restore the article? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thisi s not the place to discuss that. There are threads open on the article's talk page concernignthis edit, and on the policy's talk concernign the interpretation of the policy, the essay,. and the RFD from 2015 that you have used to justify such previously undiscussed personal information content. Meters (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please respect the admin enough to let them answer themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Tenebrae: As I stated above, your best course of action is to discuss that matter on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I will do so. No need for boldface; I was simply seeking guidance.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Warned, RfAR note)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: complex - new article - present each revert below in context. Almost all content in the article is new (from 3 August onward)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert1 19:55, 6 August 2019 - large removal of content added 3-6 August.
 * 2) revert2 19:59, 6 August 2019 - using the false edit summary "put ref back in" - Volunteer Marek removes the intervening edit from 19:58, 6 August 2019.
 * 3) revert3 20:05, 6 August 2019 (note intervening edit from 20:02) - re-instating spurious who tag (when group is referenced by three separate academic journal articles).  Note previous insertion of who tag - 09:49, 5 August 2019 (which I attempted to resolve with this edit expanding on the group + adding refs - ).  See also Talk:Islamophobia in Poland where three journal articles have been provided.
 * 4) revert4 20:07, 6 August 2019  (note intervening edit from 20:06) wholesale removal of several paragraphs of sourced information.

4 separate reverts in the span of 12 minutes.

I will also note that 5 August VM performed 3 separate reverts - 09:03, 5 August 2019, 09:05, 5 August 2019+09:06, 5 August 2019, and 09:27, 5 August 2019.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Volunteer Marek has requested I stay off his talk page. Furthermore, he had issued a warning to me - diff - a false warning I will add, as I reverted precisely twice (one full, one partial - moving information from the lede to the body) since creating the article on 3 August.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Islamophobia in Poland (newly created article) - where I've been calmly attempting to address Volunteer Marek's concerns with material sourced from mainstream media and academic journals and books.

Comments: Per WP:3RR, a "revert" is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Volunteer Marek has been repeatedly removing different sections of well-sourced on-topic content (sourced from academic journal articles discussing Islamophobia in Poland) to a newly created article. While I have been writing this article - going from a 2.6K stub (copied from material previously in a different article) to 17K (well - prior to Volunteer Marek's mass reverts tonight) in the past 3 days - Volunteer Marek has been challenging mainstream media (e.g. - - the Washington Post and BBC) and on-topic academic sources (e.g.  - the Patterns of Prejudice journal - article title - The battlefield is in Brussels’: Islamophobia in the Visegrád Four in its global context. (one of the four being Poland, which is covered therein) - which is really WP:NOTTHERE behavior given the quality of sources used here. Volunteer Marek has added precisely zero material to the article (his positive byte diffs are adding tags or re-adding a reference he cut out elsewhere.

I want to stress that I have been discussing, and that I performed precisely two reverts (both on 5 August, the second one combined with attempting to address Volunteer Marek's concerns (moving material from lead to body, addressing who tag)). I have not reverted on 6 August. I am trying to write an article - and this is quite difficult when each time I add well sourced on-topic material it gets reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OMG, I was *just* writing about this on the talk page - about Icewhiz's WP:GAME tactic of "jumping in" when someone else is making edits to the article to insert his own (relatively minor) edits in between the other editor's edits so that there edits would be non-consecutive so that he could then pretend that these are separate reverts. I mean, freakin a', I explicitly say "Icewhiz, I know you're jumping in between my edits, creating edit conflicts and sticking in your own edits between mine so that you can run to 3RR and file a spurious report" and then... that's exactly what he freakin' does! The WP:GAME is just shameless here. He's used this tactic before (gimme a few minutes to dig out the diffs) and has been admonished for it by administrators (User:NeilN and User:TonyBallioni iirc), per WP:GAME. In fact, if you look at the time line here it's pretty obvious that that's exactly what he's attempting to do here. He made no edits to the article between 9:58 and 19:55 but then when I made my first edit at 19:55 he started jumping in between my edits all of sudden within seconds. If he had laid off, these would all be consecutive edits which at most would count as a single revert. This is dishonest, cynical and WP:TENDENTIOUS and the fact that he's doing it at exactly the same time as I am complaining about it on talk (and outlining the strategy he plans on using) makes it obnoxiously transparent. WP:BOOMERANG please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying to write an article - inserting what I read in academic journal articles - this evening from Gender, Place & Culture. As I'm doing so - Volunteer Marek reverts these new additions - e.g. diff - using the odd, and false, edit summary of "put ref back in". And no - I have not been admonished for any such behavior. Adding material from academic journal articles is what editors are supposed to do on Wikipedia. It would be nice if Volunteer Marek tried to actually contribute to articles (as opposed to just removed content sourced to academic journal articles). Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

. On the one hand, those technical reverts could be viewed as consecutive, due to confusion. On the other hand, Volunteer Marek should be more cognizant of the edit history to avoid technically violating 3RR. Anyway, I'm just going to make a note of this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, so that the Committee is aware this is happening while the case is open. El_C 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are edits made within minutes, seconds of each other. Usually when I'm editing I don't check the edit history in between every single edit I make. All four edits could've been made consecutively if Icewhiz hadn't "jumped in" to create impression of false reverts. There is ONE revert here and that's it. Icewhiz has tried this tactic before  . He was admonished for it by either User:NeilN or User:TonyBallioni (you'll have to give me a bit of time to dig out that diff) because it was such a transparent attempt at WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (note I got an edit conflict) when writing the above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * False assertions - no such admonishment (VM did place walls of texts on the talk pages of multiple admins). The last time I reported VM (a while back - a year ago?) to AN/EW - he was warned IIRC. In this 19:59, 6 August 2019 edit - VM removed stuff I had just added - 19:58, 6 August 2019. He should have seen the edit conflict (assuming he didn't purposefully select an old revision (which also generates a warning), the Wiki Software opens the edit conflict dialog) - instead - he just saved over on top of it - at the very least that's careless and inconsiderate. If you have an edit conflict - you are supposed to resolve it. That VM is complaining that I am adding content from an article in the Gender, Place & Culture journal (to an article I started on 3 August, after some editors decided that in their opinion Islamophobia is not racism - and excluded Islamophobia content (then small - 2.5K) from Racism in Poland) - is really quite astounding. Much of my on-wiki time in past couple of days has been spent building up Islamophobia in Poland from scratch.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All your obfuscation in the world won't change the fact that you're disingenuously trying to pass off one revert as four reverts, and that you're doing this with full knowledge that you are being disingenuous, because about 20 minutes before this report I specifically predicted that that's what you were trying to do by jumping in with minor edits in between mine to create the impression of false reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previously reported the following:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user persistently is adding unsourced, unverifiable information to the same article. The page was protected three times (most recent protection expired August 8, after which the vandalism resumed) and the user blocked, but each time protection has expired they have returned to disrupting the page, evading their block with dynamic IPs. I left warnings on the user talk page for each IP address. Not only did the user refuse to respond on the article talk page, but they reverted my edit to the talk page completely: Would appreciate if the user's IP range was blocked. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bathtub Barracuda reported by User:General Ization (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 909721375 by QuestFour (talk) This is not concensus, this is POV editing, from your part. Information length and format has already been condensed and Macron's mention deleted. Japan stays."
 * 2)  "Middle ground."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 909718560 by Ianmacm (talk) Then fix the plethora of inclusions already within the "US" and "Mexico" which consitutes 70% of the section's length, or dismiss altoghether the "Reactions" section. Travel warnings are state issued documents, and are quite relevant."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 909717810 by Ianmacm (talk). See talk section and stop POV editing."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 909715385 by General Ization (talk) Keep the format consistent."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 909715385 by General Ization (talk) Keep the format consistent."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Reactions */
 * 2)   "/* Due weight of reactions */"
 * 3)   "/* Reactions */"
 * 4)   "/* Reactions */"
 * 5)   "/* Reactions */"
 * 6)   "/* Reactions */"
 * 7)   "/* Reactions */"
 * 8)   "/* Reactions */"


 * Comments:

. El_C 05:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Kbb2 reported by User:Womtelo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First massive removal of content, with no justification or discussion on Talk page
 * 2) First revert
 * 3) Second revert
 * 4) Third revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Deleting massive amounts of content without proper justification or discussion on the Talk page is irrespectful of all the work that's been put into previous editions by various WP editors. Such decisions should not be made by a single editor on a whim. -- Womtelo (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither of the involved editors show exemplary behavior here and I'm very disappointed in both of them. Both kept reverting and arguing in summaries while telling each other to "take it to the talk". While I sympathize with both Womtelo's concern about bias and Kbb2's concern about creep and sourcing, I reckon the two need to be strongly warned against editing the article (and possibly others with similar topics) before it is sorted out. Nardog (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * hello Nardog, thanks for your point of view. If I may add a note, I'd say that the situation is not symmetrical here. I personally have no agenda with that page, and was doing nothing else than reverting to a consensus version of the page, making zero other change; in that sense, I can't see why it would have been my role to take to the Talk page when I had no specific request to make. By contrast, I believe the burden of opening a discussion really befalls on the editor who actually intends to make a change, especially if that change involves deleting massive amounts of content. Shouldn't they look for consensus in the first place? In the end I'm the one who opened the discussion, but I don't believe this is how Talk pages are supposed to work on WP. Thanks, -- Womtelo (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The lack of prior discussion or the amount of the removal aren't by themselves what was transgressive on Kbb2's part. Editors of Wikipedia are encouraged to contribute WP:BOLDly, meaning that edits do not need prior consultation so long as they don't violate existing consensus (but note consensus can change). For the same reason, your first revert was totally justified; you challenged a bold edit. It is the reverts that ensued that cast you both in a bad light; you should have simply followed WP:BRD from the get-go. (So I considered reverting back to the stable version, i.e. reverting Kbb2 and reinstating your revert, but now that you've opened this thread I shall defer to the closing admin.)
 * Edits are not about respect to previous editors; they're about improving the encyclopedia. It is process and civility both of you lacked respect to. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nardog, Thanks for this. I didn't know about WP:BRD specifically. I was merely asking Kbb2 to come back to a consensus version and to explain which changes specifically he wanted to make, and with what justification on a case-by-case basis, rather than deleting languages by the dozen. I found his bulk edits uncivil, and his edit summaries incoherent and disdainful (like this one). I honestly don't think I've lacked civility towards him.
 * I genuinely wondered what I was supposed to do, to avoid such a brutal deletion of content. So in your understanding (and following the rules you linked to) apparently I should have accepted Kbb2's second revert, and started a Discussion on the Talk page myself, even while all the content was deleted?  Hm, okay, good to know; I guess content is always retrievable in a way, so this would be technically possible.  Is that what you would have done in my place?  Alternatively, perhaps it would have been Kbb2's duty, when realising his edits were not consensual, to take it to the Talk page right away and seek consensus, rather than act like a bully as he did.
 * Anyway, thanks for your explanations. As you hopefully realize, I've always edited WP in a constructive spirit. Best, Womtelo (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Again, an edit to an article cannot be "uncivil", unless it or its summary contains uncivil language toward another editor. One can only be uncivil to people, not things, and editors do not WP:OWN their contributions. That doesn't mean, of course, an edit cannot be disruptive.
 * You're the one who said Why don't YOU ... in the summary. "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, ... this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."
 * I should have accepted Kbb2's second revert, and started a Discussion on the Talk page myself and it would have been Kbb2's duty, when realising his edits were not consensual, to take it to the Talk page right away and seek consensus are both true. Whenever a content dispute like this occurs, it is customary to restore the stable version, i.e. the one that stood for long before the dispute, until it settles, but you shouldn't be the one doing it when you are directly involved in the dispute. Nardog (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Nardog, You're making a mistake in thinking the uppercase in my edit summary was uncivil: it was not in any way. This was merely an instance of English prosodic stress, which is usually noted with italics, but cannot be so in an edit summary, where capitalization is the only possible method. Not indicating prosodic stress here would have resulted in a different meaning ("Why don't you try" vs. "Why don't you try"). So no, I don't believe I was uncivil. I was only asking Kbb2 to discuss his bulk changes as soon as he realized they were not consensual — which he never did, to this day. Instead he would keep deleting whole amounts of text without explanation, saying essentially he would do as he pleased, and if people wanted to go back to a more consensual version now they had to discuss it on the Talk page; this made no sense to me. I find his behavior bullyish, and contrary to the spirit of WP. -- Womtelo (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I have no idea why you thought it was the uppercase that I found uncivil, not the fact you didn't outright try to resolve the issue through discussion while telling the other to do it. Sure, Kbb2 was doing the same, but that doesn't give you an excuse.
 * Calling someone "bullyish" while insisting on your innocence without an indication of trying to see if there was any fault in you as well isn't helping you to be honest. Describe matter-of-factly what you think violated Wikipedia's rules and why, not what you felt, or you will not get people on your side. Nardog (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I've done. In those edits, I've removed entries that were unsourced (e.g. Persian), had unreliable sourcing and those that I felt made the table too big. We're not *required* to list any language. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to preserve unsourced information, not the other way around. Because of the complexity of my edits, you should've written on the talk page.

Does How do you get to decide which languages make it to the entry, and which don't? That is *very* arbitrary of you., which is your very first edit summary in the dispute, address *my* edit summaries in any way? I can't see that. It did made me angry that I listed all of the reasons for removal and you just pretended that I didn't. That's not a sign of respect.

I apologize for edit warring.

EDIT: And for the late reply. I thought the dispute took place yesterday, my bad. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an administrator noticeboard. If you want to discuss the content of the article, use the talk. Nardog (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

User:イケメン大富豪 reported by User:Lullabying (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobuhiro_Watsuki&oldid=909787383
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobuhiro_Watsuki&oldid=909722709
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobuhiro_Watsuki&oldid=902637713
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobuhiro_Watsuki&oldid=888509125

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:イケメン大富豪

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

Comments:

Nobuhiro Watsuki has been under a lot of edit warring regarding his 2017 child pornography charges. I opened a request for comment on the talk page and a non-admin closure determined that there was some consensus in subsectioning information about his charges in the career section. User insists that no consensus has been made. lullabying (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . Those are not diffs, and only two of them are recent.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

User:DavidGoldish reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo in last name (under Other Names). Should be “Goldish”, not “Goldfish”. There is no ‘F’ in his last name. Thanks."
 * 2)  "/* Early life */Fixed typo in his last name. Should be “Goldish”, not “Goldfish”. There is no ‘F’ in his last name. Thanks."
 * 3)  "/* Goldwyn Pictures */Fixed typo. Last name under “Other Names” should be “Goldish”, not “Goldfish.  There should be no ‘F’ in the middle of his name. Thanks."
 * 4)  "/* Early life */Fixed typo. Last name was “Goldish”, not “Goldfish”."
 * 5)  "/* Paramount */Fixed type - for the second time. Last name s/b “Goldish”, not “Goldish”. Why are my edits not being saved?"
 * 6)  "Fixed typo"
 * 7)  "/* Paramount */Fixed type - for the second time. Last name s/b “Goldish”, not “Goldish”. Thanks."
 * 8)  "Fixed typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”."
 * 9)  "/* Early life */Typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 10)  "/* Paramount */Fixed Typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 11)  "/* Paramount */Fixed typo. “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 12)  "/* Paramount */Fixed typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 13)  "/* Goldwyn Pictures */Fixed typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 1)  "/* Paramount */Fixed typo. “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 2)  "/* Paramount */Fixed typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"
 * 3)  "/* Goldwyn Pictures */Fixed typo. Changed “Goldfish” to “Goldish”"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Goldfish */ Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction"


 * Comments:


 * – Indef by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:193.115.86.204 reported by User:AnonWikiEditor (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again. They have been removing Marvel's own announcement of when the Falcon series will appear. Besides not being very logical, this action is also against the consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:283:4600:FCB9:105A:A8AC:5E32:58E9 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Rangeblocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP repeatedly inserting unsourced (and incidentally NPOV) material despite being repeatedly asked to provide sources. They are also incidentally inserting a note that they likely have no consensus for. Reported at AIV but was asked to bring here instead. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2601:283:4600:FCB9:0:0:0:0/64 has been hopping about edit warring unsourced changes into articles going back to April; as such I've blocked the range for a month. This is likely a sock, but I'm not wasting time trying to connect the dots at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt resolution! DonIago (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Typ932 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  m (Undid revision 908390013 by Davey2010 (talk))
 * 2)  m (il wil tell you)
 * 3)  m (Reverted to revision 908391962 by Typ932 (talk): Style edit using TW)
 * 4)  m (Undid revision 908859592 by Davey2010 (talk))
 * 5)  m (Reverted to revision 908859820 by Typ932 (talk): No need to edit it was all good using TW)
 * 6)  m (→‎Engines: fix)
 * 7)  m (Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk) to last revision by Typ932 using TW)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   (Warning: Edit warring on Alfa Romeo 166. (TW))

Talk:Alfa_Romeo_166 (started by myself on 13:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

On the 29th July I made a change to the engine table at Alfa Romeo 166, Typ932 reverted without providing a reason, Typ had come to my talkpage an hour or so later however I was away from the pc so when I came back to see this ("So you dont notice when someone write to your talk page?") I pretty much lost it and banned them from my talkpage (Bishonen had then warned them to stay off my talkpage),

After the second or third revert I headed to the talkpage and me and Typ had been discussing it although their last reply was on the 1st August yet they'd carried on reverting, They've gone to the talkpage now however I feel this has gone on for long enough,

Also worth noting today they'd used Twinkle to revert me which shouldn't be used especially in an edit war,

I do accept fault for not going to the talkpage sooner however I still feel I've tried to resolve this the best I can,

FWIW I still don't know what they even object to....,

Anyway thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I also made the stupid mistake of falling for the bait which I think may of been why they'd reverted again today, In all fairness I did immediately revert after but probably shouldn't of fallen for it in the first place. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Typ932 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Alfa Romeo 166 unless they obtain a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston - Not having a go but what does warning achieve ?, They were warned when they started this and yet continued to edit war anyway, 7 reverts within a 2 week period is not good and I'm rather surprised they're just getting a warning for it. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:JPratas reported by User:177.19.73.200 (Result: Page semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user is trying to place this edit on an unappropriate page, the article is supposed to be about Fascism in Europe, not just the Estado Novo, so there shouldn't be this much focus on it on the page, this is just the tip of the iceberg, the user attempts to impose his edits without discussion and edit wars in order to do so, he inverts the common rule of users having to gain consensus for the edits that one introduces, instead, for him, we should gain consensus for removing them, when the opposite should be the case, this has been happening many times since April, and nothing has been done about it. -- 177.19.73.200 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) The information being added by JPratas is relevant to the article -- dealing as it does with fascism in Portugal -- and properly sourced
 * (2) A disagreement about the appropriateness of the material is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page
 * (3) JPratas did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours
 * (4) The edits listed here took place on August 5, 6 and 9.
 * (5) Assuming all the IPs reverting JPrata's additions are the same person, their behavior has been appreciable worse
 * (6) The article is now semi'd due to IP vandalism
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Fascism in Europe has been semiprotected for one week by User:Anarchyte. For additional background on the pattern of IP editing, other admins might look at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In fairness, the IP did convince the closer of the RfC to overturn their closure, so I'm not sure going with vandalism was the right call here. El_C 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that the protection was unrelated to the dispute, the IP "39.118.192.141" seems to be the vandal, all his edits were removed and his talk page was blocked, I would like to state that that IP does not belong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.98.84 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Maybe, after all these months, you should just register an account. Much confusion would be spared, and there would be one, single user talk page in which to address you and one, single contribution would increase accountability. Plus, after a while, you will not be subject to the limits imposed by semiprotection. Just seems intuitive. El_C 01:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about this. My protection, as the IP said, was in response to the antisemitism the 39.x IP put on various pages. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 05:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry for my oversight, Anarchyte. El_C 02:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Thucyd reported by User:PluniaZ (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Per WP:3RRBLP, I have the right to remove biased material without regard to the 3RR, and Thucyd has the burden of obtaining community consensus to restore the material. Thucyd has made no attempt to obtain community consensus. PluniaZ (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a BLP violation here sufficient to claim an exemption. There is a section in the body about Martin's views on homosexuality, and it's reasonable to summarize that in the lead. Both editors have been edit-warring since about August 8, although neither has violated 3RR. It is true that raised the issue on the article Talk page and that  has not responded, but I must say the name of the section PluniaZ added is unconstructive: "Wikipedia should not repeat the attacks of homophobic bigots".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article, Father James Martin, has been under attack by homophobic bigots for many years. The bishop of San Diego referred to the attacks against him as follows: "The coordinated attack on Building a Bridge must be a wake-up call for the Catholic community to look inward and purge itself of bigotry against the L.G.B.T. community."  .  Thucyd is attempting to portray the attacks of a fringe group of anti-LGBT organizations as if they were a mainstream criticism of Father Martin. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the "section in the body about Martin's views on homosexuality" is the very paragraph under dispute, which Thucyd has been tendentiously inserting into the article without making any effort to obtain community consensus, even though it is his obligation to do so per WP:BLP. The paragraph misrepresents the views of those whom it quotes, as I have explained at length in the talk section, and it contains unsourced, inaccurate claims, such as: "Martin called for a closer dialogue with the LGBT community and argued in favor of changing the Catholic teaching on homosexuality."  That is simply a lie and needs to be reverted immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that Thucyd had added the controversies section. For some reason, I only saw the addition to the lead. This is my error, and I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * for 2 weeks to allow for the issue to be worked out on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  15:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User:50.246.63.33 reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * 24 hours. They were given enough warnings, and continued to edit war. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User:96.60.219.59 reported by User:Frood (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 910558724 by EPGuy64 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 910553498 by EPGuy64 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 4)  "/* Controversy */Restored edits deleted by vandal account EPGuy46"
 * 5)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 6)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 7)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 8)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 9)  "/* External links */"
 * 10)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"


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


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


 * Comments:

see Special:Diff/910563806 and Special:Contributions/24.49.138.221. Frood 23:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring. Since User:Bbb23 has recently semiprotected the article for a week a block of the IP doesn't appear necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */ per NOT, EL"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Ammarpad (talk) to last version by Ronz"
 * 3)  "/* External links */ per NOT, EL"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 910440392 by HouseOfChange (talk) lots of problems with such links - borders on linkspam"
 * 5)  "/* External links */ per NOT, EL"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* BRD and "I'm glad we're moving forward" */ re"


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reverting editors to remove what they don't like even though it's perfectly OK. Using misleading edit summary claiming TED speaker is a spamlink. Continuous reverion and misusing rollback. I left them a personally written reminder, they didn't like it and reverted it. Note also The editor carefully managed to spread his reverts outside 24 hour period, which is still a violation and they are removing a valid link that has been in the previous versions before they start editwarring to remove it with a flimsy reason.– Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Ammarpad doesn't appear to know what a revert is, nor how to work collaboratively with other editors to form consensus.
 * More to follow --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 3, and 5 are not reverts. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All three are reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure the Admins here know what's revert and will not use your preferred definition. The policy page WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. All your edit listed above are reverts not talk of misusing rollback. I rarely report people here, but you reverted my friendly reminder on your talkpage and then sent me an intimidating message on mine, then went ahead and revert the article to your preferred version. I will not argue with you here again, unless asked.– Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1, 3, and 5 are not reverts. They are removals of three separate external links from the External links section of the article.
 * Given ELBURDEN and an open ELN discussion where Ammarpad doesn't understand why everyone else agrees on the removal of the TED link, the link should not be restored.
 * Sorry about using rollback, but it looked then as a rather bad faith edit that ignored the discussions and PAGs. It looks worse now. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

More comments before this ANI is closed Concerning why "everyone else agrees on the removal of the TED link", I thought the link belonged in the article but was willing to agree otherwise if that was consensus at EL Noticeboard. The removal was supported by and, both of whom were specifically named on the talk page by Jimbo Wales as people who should stay away from editing the Al Seckel article and its talk page. Instead, Ronz is actively working to remove material related to Seckel's notability, cheered on by Tmciver on the talk page. The only EL he has permitted to remain in the article is a link to an interview of Seckel with Jeffrey Epstein. I am gratified that Ronz is blocked for 24 hours, but it would be more to the point to block both him and McIver from editing Al Seckel because they are not there to build an informative encyclopedia article about Al Seckel. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I've refactored my comments above. I had no idea that removal of content in general is considered a revert, regardless of any indication that anyone might consider it in dispute for any reason. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sara.sato reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Sock blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 910722346 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I totally disagree!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 910717184 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Headings for short sections are needed!!! No edit summary to rely on? Are u kidding? The reason for this change is simple: improvement, clarity!!!..."
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 4)  "/* Track listing */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit summary triggering the edit filter on Breakfast in America. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Discussion on the editor's talk page. This is a new editor. First edits were unexplained. What the editor did is obvious, and unnecessary. Why it was done was not. No discussion until I left a warning to leave edit summaries. Past WP:3RR despite leaving warning. Not sure if my request to discuss after fourth revert was seen or not, but headings are not needed here as the second CD is still part of the track listing and the heading parameter is clear what it is. I cannot see a reason that its inclusion makes the article any more clear and the MoS suggests that we should avoid short sections. Feels like a case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", without the actual argument to support the idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:185.41.130.3 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previously discussed in Talk:Polish League Against Defamation

Comments:

Also: Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Challenging NEWORGS, journal articles, and academic book chapters as opinions and "blog posts" - . Also -.
 * 2) Socking accusations - "Switching accounts now? It is against Wikipedia law to account hop"
 * 3) Socking accusations + personal attacks: "You're the one who account hopped and launched this POV biased tirade in the first place. Your "warnings" mean nothing when you are the troll yourself who vandalizes. Should you attempt to threaten me again, I will report you"
 * 4)  The IP has been making questionable POV edits elsewhere - removing sourced info -, . Going through their contributions it looks like generally WP:NOTTHERE.
 * 5) The page was previously targeted by a 64-bit IP currently under a long block -.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Kapeter77 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 910784370 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 910781692 by IamNotU (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 910781692 by IamNotU (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 910663634 by LindsayH (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clueless insertion of bad English to the article. Rapid-fire edit-warring against three editors. Will not take no for an answer and has declared he will keep reverting despite warnings. Obvious lack of WP:CLUE. Dr.  K.  12:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I need DETAILED explanation: what was wrong with my edits? Kapeter77 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:EPGuy64 reported by User:Frood (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored edits previously deleted by 96.60.219.59.  These edits were facts contained in the source he cited for his original edit.  My edits were made for accuracy and context.  He is trying to change the narrative for malicious means."
 * 2)  "Added content omitted by the modified edit and reordered existing content for accuracy and context.  All content appears in the article originally cited as a source."
 * 3)  "Added content omitted by the original edit but included in the cited reference for the purposes of accuracy and context"
 * 4)  "Deleted edit again. Edit and story referenced by the edit is libelous. Allegations of bullying were investigated and unfounded (see paragraph 8, sentence 2 of the referenced article, and author comments). Deleted edits were made maliciously - for the purposes of damaging reputations.  I continue to be threatened on my talk page by the editor."
 * 5)  "Deleted edit again. Edit and story referenced by the edit is libelous. Allegations of bullying were investigated and unfounded (see paragraph 8, sentence 2 of the referenced article, and author comments). The edits I've deleted have been made maliciously by the user making them.  User is now re-posting the edits under a user account. Libelous edits are against Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:Libel)"
 * 6)  "Deleted edit again. Edit and story referenced by the edit is libelous. Allegations of bullying were investigated and unfounded (see paragraph 8, sentence 2 of the referenced article, and author comments). The edits I've deleted have been made maliciously by the user making them.  User has made comments to my talk page that are in violation of Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:WikiBullying and Wikipedia:WikiHarrassment) . Libelous edits are against Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:Libel)."
 * 7)  "Deleted edit again. Edit and story referenced by the edit is libelous. Allegations of bullying were investigated and unfounded (see paragraph 8, sentence 2 of the referenced article, and author comments). Libelous edits are against Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:Libel)."
 * 8)  "Deleted edit again.  Edit and story referenced by the edit is libelous.  Allegations of bullying were investigated and unfounded (see paragraph 8, sentence 2 of the referenced article, and author comments).  Libelous edits are against Wikipedia rules (see Wikipedia:Libel)."
 * 9)  "Re-deleted edit made by 24.49.138.221, who is also the same person as 96.60.219.59. The article and specific edit are libelous.  Bullying complaints were investigated and unfounded (see original referenced story).  Posting libelous edits are against Wikipedia rules."
 * 10)  "Referenced news report is libelous.  Claims of bullying investigated and unfounded.  @CLCStudent see email for further"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 910402822 by CLCStudent (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

user left information on both my talk page and theirs containing personal info about the other party involved - it's now been oversighted. Frood 23:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:EPGuy64 has not edited since this AN3 report was filed. Let's wait and see if he will respond. Merely claiming that reliably published newspaper articles are libelous does not make them so. It is possible that some of this material could be worked over more carefully for neutrality, but I see no clear defense for EPGuy64 under WP:BLP. There has been no unsourced defamation against Rawson-Neal Hospital or Dr. Shera Bradley. The most you could argue is that per WP:NOTNEWS the complaints that Bradley bullied other staff members might not yet belong in the hospital's article. The bullying complaint about Bradley was newly published on 7th August in the Nevada Current. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:EPGuy64 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:GergisBaki reported by User:CharlesShirley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Consensus version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

8/14 3:46 Edit #1

8/14 3:50 Edit #2

8/14 3:50 Edit #3

8/14 3:52 Edit #4

8/14 3:53 Edit #5

8/14 3:53 Edit #6

8/14 4:00 Edit #7

8/14 11:30 Edit #8

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: GergisBaki was warned #1 and warned #2 and warned #3 and warned #4

Comments:

GergisBaki has been asked to stop edit warring and discuss the Tucker Carlson article on the talk page, but refuses and just keep making reverts. The number of reverts is well over three.--CharlesShirley (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * — Ched : ?    —  15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:MichaelScott9986000 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC) "(Remove unsourced)"
 * 2)  "(Remove unsourced per WP:V)"
 * 3)  "Stop adding content that is not sourced, could be made up from thin air as far as anyone knows"
 * 4)  "WP:V is a core content policy on Wikipedia so needs to be respected. This content is not sourced."
 * 5)  "Importance is irrelevance, there's no source for it so no-one knows if it's correct. Someone could've added it and made it up. Add a source to a WP:RS"
 * 6)  "Not vandalism. I simply removed everything that wasn't referenced because everything on this page needs to be, it can't be sourced from the TV programmes themselves because this page is exempt from WP:PRIMARY unlike many other TV shows apparently."
 * 7)  "Remove unsourced"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on BBC News (TV channel). (TW)"
 * 2)   "(Warning: Edit warring on BBC News (TV channel). (TW))"
 * 3)   "(→‎August 2019: new section)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Editor keeps removing a large chunk of content and despite being told to go to the talkpage they've continued to revert with various editors, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The content I am removing is not sourced so it should not remain, see WP:V. No policy has been given for the content remaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelScott9986000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been disputed repeatedly, There's no excuse for ignoring WP:3rr here (WP:V is not a reason to revert.) – Davey 2010 Talk 14:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  14:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:100.34.85.135 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: {season 5)  (season 6)  (season 7)  (season 8)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The IP user has been vandalizing numerous American Idol articles, mostly changing order of performances which could be hard to know if these were correct, but in a couple of articles he change placements that are easy to notice such as the runner-up winning a season and a third place finisher winning another season. In the past, they have made similar edits to The Voice, Jeopardy and Masterchef articles. So it appears they are changing articles to what they wished happened on the show instead of what actually happened. Aspects (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: This has to be the same editor under a slightly different IP address that was blocked back in December for six months for making the same sorts of edits on the same articles, . Aspects (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – 6 months. As noted by the filer, User:Aspects, this appears to be the same person as who was previously blocked in February for six months by User:Ad Orientem. There is no practical rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Depay11 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

User has received three warnings this month for edit warring on multiple articles: Goldie Hawn (seven reverted edits since 3 August, and Moors murders (four reverts). It does not appear this editor wants to discuss, only communicate via edit summaries.  ☾Loriendrew☽   ☏(ring-ring)  22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given a final warning., if you see these edits being made again please ping me and I will block.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * unfortunately he is doing it again, to a number of articles.
 * I've now blocked 48 hours for continuing to remove partners from articles on other actors after this report was closed. They have not responded to three prior warnings and have never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Panda619 (Result: No violation/stale)

 * Page: Panda619 (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on One Piece. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 910855132 by QuestFour (talk) don't remove recent active discussions"
 * 3)   "/* July 2019 Edit war */"
 * 1)   "/* July 2019 Edit war */"


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


 * Comments:

I wanted to have discussion about a edit war, but user seems to be deleting the discussion itself and making abusive comments in the edit summary of his own talk page while removing the discussion itself, like "can you f off". Panda619 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a single diff listed. QuestFour hasn't edited the article since July 30.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, the user did many reverts before that, which I noticed today and wanted to discuss, but the user behavior is abusive. --Panda619 (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Kitcatx reported by User:Lzzy303 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910059505

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910087551
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910675023
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910800616
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910804375
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=910938881

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communion_and_Liberation

Comments:

{User Kitcatx has been vandalizing two affiliated pages, Communion and Liberation and Rimini Meeting. They were warned twice and merely deleted the warnings from their talk page. They keep inserting biased criticism, controversies, and conspiracies against Communion and Liberation in the description of the organization, rather than limiting those entries to the "Controversies and Criticism" section. A few times they have also deleted a good amount of information on the organization, replacing it with criticism and providing misleading information attacking the organization. Lzzy303 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Lzzy303}}


 * Hi, I've used the talk pages, there is no need to be such aggressive. Kitcatx   (talk)  16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Continue to use the talk pages to discuss your differences, and seek dispute resolution if necessary. – bradv  🍁  16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri Human reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 911002584 by AnUnnamedUser (talk)unacceptable fiction being imposed on the world"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 910998749 by AnUnnamed juUser (talk)Just plain reality. Edits from a country virtually declared as a Terrorist one, ruled by a Military with control of Terrorist organisations, are unaccepatable by a civilized world. Stop begging for food,"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 910997214 by Aranya (talk)there is is obviously a gang of persons bent on spreading untruth. Pl check the situation on the ground and as supported by the United Nations Security councilresolutions"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 910996668 by Donner60 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 910996008 b my changes reflected facts. Ever... seems to be sponsored Everedux (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 910994621 by AnUnnamedUser (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

A vandalism-only account. Warned 5 times on talk today, disruptive editing continued afterwards. Page is under 1RR discretionary sanctions. Definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  00:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Indef by User:Bbb23 as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Anonywiki reported by User:OrgoneBox (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */ I managed to view the page and none of that stuff about "the term originated from a satirical website" is in any way part of the article. You're performing original research yourself. Meanwhile the outer limits episode was interested, well-sourced and not disputed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 910560702 by OrgoneBox (talk) Rubbish. The term is being used the exact same way as it is on the website, except it's "satirical" there, the exact same. I can't even see that website because I live in europe and it's blocked here. If anything should be removed it's that link."


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


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

Editor has a long block record for disruption and a talk page full of warnings for this type of behavior. Persistently editing the Chad (slang) article to insert synthesis source to a non WP:RS, refuses to accept and is instead responding with belligerence and stale revert warring against long established consensus. The third edit is from days ago. OrgoneBox There is a persistent problem with this editor over many years regarding misuse of sources and edit warring to force his preferred versions. (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib reported by User:Mkativerata (Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On my user talk page I have suggested that the editor self-revert. He has not availed himself of that opportunity.—Mkativerata (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Your report is virtually blank — what gives? El_C 07:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - fixed now. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added sources from notable Bangladeshi dailies like Bangladesh Pratidin, Kaler Kantho, Amader Shomoy. The are in 1st, 3rd and 8th by circulation in Bangladesh. But, Mkativerata has mentioned my edit as "nationalist rubbish". My question is will prominent 3 newspapers of a country will publish article about "nationalist rubbish"? Even I have given source of Malaysiakini and Dailyhunt (India) about his grandfather's home. But he had said, I should not edit on those topic that I have no knowledge.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're reverting against a massive number of sources including Mahathir's biography and other academic literature. See, for example,, , , , (somewhere in 'southern India' but Kerala uncertain), . But as bad as that is, the key point for this report is that you've reverted four times in 24 hours, which you know is against the rules, because I've pointed it out to you twice, but you still won't self-revert. The fact that you won't self-revert shows that you are not serious about editing collegially, and paying deference to a long-standing sourced version of an article, and instead are hell-bent on edit-warring to push a weakly-sourced view about the ancestry of a serving head of government --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I will do self revert. But I don't find option as I edit Wikipedia from Mobile phone. It is complex edit Wikipedia on Smartphone. It should be discussed about his ancestor. I have references too.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I note for passing admins that S. M. Nazmus Shakib has now self-reverted.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Self revert done. But in Bangladesh Pratidin (most circulated Bangladeshi daily), |Amader Shomoy (8th most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Kaler Kantho (3rd most circulated Bangladeshi daily), Janakantha, (6th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh) Nayadiganta (15th most circulated newspaper in Bangladesh), Azadi (newspaper's sub editorial) it was mentioned about his Bangladeshi ancestors. Even in Malaysiakini and Dailyhunt it was mentioned too.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Fcbjuvenil reported by User:21 Lilac Street (Result: Sock indeffed; Fcbjuvenil warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 911231953 by 21 Lilac Street (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 911169922 by 21 Lilac Street (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"


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

This user is clearly stalking me, he keeps reverting even after presenting an official source. See: https://www.atleticodemadrid.com/noticias/augusto-fernandez-ya-es-rojiblanco Moved on 1st January FCBJuvenil (talk)
 * Comments:
 * I've blocked 21 Lilac Street as a sock of, someone you should be familiar with. However, the two of you edit-warred shamelessly. If 21 Lilac Street hadn't been a sock, I would have blocked you both. I'm letting you off with a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:73.22.184.81 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: one week)

 * 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:

. El_C 18:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:9580:3FF0:18CD:D35:A24E:F56B reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 911287331 by GummiBear139 (talk) Reverted to version that includes tags that indicated necessary edits."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 911285923 by Crossroads1 (talk) Article uses weasel words like "considered" that are against wikipedia policy and should be corrected by a more knowledgeable editor."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 911283172 by GummiBear139 (talk) Article needs more clarity."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 911282296 by MarnetteD (talk) previous version used weasel words"


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


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 21:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I am not involved in this dispute but this has gotten out of hand. User has made five reverts on the Star Wars page in the last 24 hours. The user involved in this dispute,, has made at least three or four reverts. Both users were warned by a third party,, and no attempt at resolution on the talk page has been made. Both users may need to be subject to a block or the page might need to be fully protected.


 * Just so it's clear, those reverts were all of attempts by the same user to make undiscussed large-scale changes, with slightly different (incomplete or false) edit summaries. I personally ended up making some of the changes the other user claimed to be attempting, so this wasn't an edit war so much as my attempt to correct poor editing habits, and reenforce due process. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about the content that User:UpdateNerd has been adding to Star Wars related articles but - whatever he thinks - this is as clear an example of an edit war as you can imagine. Not only has UpdateNerd crossed the 3RR bright line, but he has refused to engage in talk page discussions despite being politely asked to by multiple editors on multiple related articles. He continues to edit war across these articles. I believe a block is in order, along with clear instructions that he needs to follow WP:BRD and that future edit-warring on these articles will lead to more severe sanctions. Railfan23 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to come to my own defense again, the dispute which I failed to bring to the talk page was outside of the above edits. Those were on individual film articles and were an attempt to make them more consistent. I didn't reinstate my original edits when reverted, but tried to revert to a later revision than User:Toa Nidhiki05 did, so less work would be lost. I guess I should have taken some time away from the article to avoid the illusion of edit-warring, but I really don't have any investment in the lost edits. The non-controversial stuff wasn't reverted, I just had to find the right balance. :) I don't have any previous engagement with either Toa or Railfan23, so while I think the warnings on my page were in good faith, getting put on this noticeboard might have been borderline spurious. Just my biased opinion. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This report is not about that. This is about the edit war at the Star Wars page. On the other pages, I would again recommend you go to a WikiProject before making mass changes to the structure of 11 articles. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (Just to be clear, changes to the order and formatting of the lead isn't a structural mass-change.) The change being discussed above was handled by finding a resolution between me and the other editor, Rosvel92. Rosvel made several similar, but not identical edits, which I reverted because the summary falsely represented their contents, and this same user has been warned by others for making similar-style edits in the past. I don't propose any banning be done, just a warning (as I tried to do in the revert edit summaries) about discussing actual large-scale structural changes first. Reverting falsely represented, previously challenged changes follows WP:BRD, and doing so multiple times when it would be done by any other editor is also pretty noncontroversial. I feel this is already out of scope and this is my final word on a topic that two others seem to have only noticed by 'policing' the articles, not actually engaging with their contents. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:GetawayDress reported by User:U990467 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What's wrong with it? Many articles has more than one cover for example Square up or Map of the soul part 1."
 * 2)  "Please don't delete it... Many articles have more than one cover."
 * 3)  "Stop deleting it ksksksk. What's wrong with you lmao? Are u that obsessed with second covers on this page?"
 * 4)  "Fuck you"
 * 1)  "Stop deleting it ksksksk. What's wrong with you lmao? Are u that obsessed with second covers on this page?"
 * 2)  "Fuck you"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user keep adding extra second album cover without taking it to the talk page and ignoring any of my reverting. In the end, that user even used bad language in the edit summary, and making several destructive edits on my user page, commenting some insulting sentence. --U990467 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The user has the action to remove this report by itself illegally twice . --U990467 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. And it's not "illegally," Wikipedia isn't a court. I've blocked them for disruptive editing, since they grossly refactored your notification on their talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Collebud88 reported by User:Uanfala (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=911109443&oldid=911083955
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=911109627&oldid=911109443
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=911138518&oldid=911133594
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=911144029&oldid=911142784
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=911144767&oldid=911144638

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: That's five reverts in the space of five hours, but I'm less concerned about the letter of the rule, than with what appears to be a persistent pattern. The prelude to the above was in the history of Colombia, concerning pretty much the same content. I started a discussion at Talk:Colombia, and nudged Collebud88 to participate several times. They refused to engage and simply reverted, again and again. I guess CIR is also involved here: this edit warring revolves around content that they're trying to buttress with citations that don't actually support the claims made (for example, the claim that Colombia is the most ethnically diverse country in the world with a website that only talks about diversity of wildlife, or the claim that it's a regional power first with raw GDP statistics, then with a magazine article about the country being that magazine' country of the year at the time). – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit-warring has continued unabated on both Regional power and on Colombia. Apologies if this extends beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard, but looking at their talk page, it appears that the same issues have been raised again and again. See his post where another editor complained about their additions not being supported by the sources they've ostensibly cited. There are several more warnings about adding unsourced content, about half a dozen editors warning them about edit-warring, two warnings about copying without attribution. Given the persistent edit warring, the refusal to engage in discussion, and the apparent absence of understanding of basic policies on sourcing and copyright, I think an indef would probably be the only solution (subject, of course, to an appeal at any time if they demonstrate they've learned the basics). – Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * please make use of article talk pages otherwise you may end up with an indef block. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mtbltwimtblttph reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 2)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 3)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 4)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 5)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 6)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 1)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"
 * 2)  "/* Comparison with Modern Standard Urdu */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Hindi is a dialect of Urdu */"


 * Comments:

Edit warring on a page under 1RR sanctions; additionally, a likely sockpuppet (see notice on Talk). — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

. The first diff listed seems to be the original edit, not a revert. The Previous version reverted to field was left blank. El_C 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Canon 108 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 911590979 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) results from previous years are available in the links at the top of the category."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 911590102 by Walter Görlitz (talk) there are links available for anyone interested in results in previous years."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 911583152 by S.A. Julio (talk) the is no rule dictating the amount of time results have to be up, there are multiple links available if people want to check results from previous years."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 909855109 by S.A. Julio (talk) there are more than one link for past results at the top of the category, the 2018 results on the main page at this point are redundant."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 909855109 by S.A. Julio (talk) there are more than one link for past results at the top of the category, the 2018 results on the main page at this point are redundant."
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&curid=250204&diff=911593246&oldid=911591495 "removed the 2018 results as it's no longer relevant, and the past results are available in the links at the top of the category."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is attempting to impose their own will against three four other editors who see no reason for the action. This has been a slow motion edit war and has been in-progress since late June (two months now). It has heated-up recently with the editor reaching four reverts in the past 90 minutes. No attempt to discuss outside edit summaries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * . I have a half a mind to block Walter Görlitz and S.A. Julio as well. You've not broken the thre-revert rule, but you've reverted this sort of edit from the same editor previousl and have equally failed to engage outside of edit summaries. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussions and warnings I have placed on the editor's talk page argue against that claim. Hard to discuss with an editor who won't discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to discuss with an editor who won't discuss. That applies equally to you. You may have warned the other editor of their inappropriate conduct, but you've made no attempt to actually discuss the subject of the dispute. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I only reverted this user once prior to today, not sure why this would be worthy of a block. I've been working on a project and didn't have time earlier to address the issue more specifically, though I've now opened a section at the article talk page. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:86.185.219.5 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There's no source on Chinese sovereignty being on titular on Macau, no treaty port.  Portuguese were forced to pay rent, governor assassinated and kept asking for self-administration but Chinese refuse. Portugal had no real power in macau."
 * 2)  "For god sake,  CaradhrasAiguo had been blocked in 2019 July for disruptive editing, he is banned and continue diruspt editing look at his.  FOR GOD SAKE,  Titular means holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority. and there was no treaty"
 * 1)  "For god sake,  CaradhrasAiguo had been blocked in 2019 July for disruptive editing, he is banned and continue diruspt editing look at his.  FOR GOD SAKE,  Titular means holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority. and there was no treaty"
 * 1)  "For god sake,  CaradhrasAiguo had been blocked in 2019 July for disruptive editing, he is banned and continue diruspt editing look at his.  FOR GOD SAKE,  Titular means holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority. and there was no treaty"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The edit summaries from earlier today, are disruptive in themselves in their length:, ,

Given the chap is familiar with WP:DE policy, and deliberately misled the community in the same summary as to me somehow being "banned", a summary block is warranted. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reported user has not actually reverted even once. remember that you must provide an explanation when reverting edits which are not obvious vandalism, which you did not do when you first reverted the editor here. Long descriptive edit summaries cannot be said to be disruptive just because of their length, the upper limit on summary length was purposely increased some time within the last year.  do not attack other users. Comment on content, not contributors. The fact that an editor has an entry in their block log is completely irrelevant to any of this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1011:b157:a531:1ddb:2cba:b507:4e67 reported by User:C.Fred (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As you can see from the talk page and article history, this is an issue that goes back at least three months, if not more. The issue is the acute one of this IP showing up, refusing to engage in talk page discussion, and persisting in re-adding the entire quotation. The IP has hit five reverts in the past 24 hours, including one since the 3RR warning was given. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Scope creep reported by User:Lqqhh (Result: both editors advised, discussion opened)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not on the article's talk page but on mine)

Comments:

This user reverted an edit I made which overhauled some low quality text. They accused me of failing to provide a citation. A request for a citation obviously does not make any sense if one has merely rewritten something. Eventually it transpired that the particular text they thought needed citing had been added to the article eleven years ago (see discussion on my talk page linked above). They are now stalking my edits and have undone several others for nonsensical reasons (such as claiming that something should not be mentioned in a lead section because it is mentioned in the article). In the case that I am reporting here, they have reverted four times in 3.5 hours, their most recent being a partial revert with a misleading edit summary. Lqqhh (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The user above removed a secondary source from The Telegraph in a quote from the lede, then added a whole chunk of text without adding a source. The article Design and Art Direction has only six reference, and a relatively high quality ref was removed. The block of text added was new content. I did a quick survey of the editors work and reverted on the Douglas MacArthur when he removed the word famous in his famous I will return speech, outside consensus and in FA article. In addition I removed unsourced content from Durchmusterung and a date range in the lede, which is unsuitable. The editor does good work but generally seems to consider that as long as it is prose being updated and being added, it doesn't need a reference.   scope_creep Talk  15:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if everything you have said were true (and it is not), how would it justify you breaking the three revert rule? Lqqhh (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will ask you what justifies you in being persistently uncivil? That is also one of our rules. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Had I been persistently uncivil &mdash; and I have clearly not been &mdash; how would that justify User:Scope creep breaking the rules on edit warring? Lqqhh (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I now know the text wasn't yours but you should have said so. The message would have still been the same. When people start moving content and start add content into old articles, it is par for the course to add references as you go, where there was none before. Before 2008 there was more than 2million articles on Wikipedia and a massive number of them weren't referenced. Do you think they are still unreferenced?  scope_creep Talk  20:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe—as a WP editor with only 4 years experience—I'm not understanding something, but has considered the unavailability of online references for text that was 11 years old? Here's a 2005 review by some apparent Brits of the 512-page illustrated book that is the "Further Reading" in the Design and Art Direction article.  Not least for reasons of copyright violation, there isn't any URL for the book.  In the first WP article I wrote, almost all the refs are to printed sources—because the notable subject of the article had ceased most public activity by age 50 in 1977.  Fortunately he left a substantial "clippings pile" in his late wife's dresser, which I was able to retrieve after his death in 2015.  Maybe scope_creep can buy a second-hand copy of the Jeremy Myerson & Graham Vickers book in London, check it for verification (which I'm pretty sure he'll find) of the text he has deleted, and convert the "Further Reading" listing into a proper reference to the re-inserted text cited multiple times.  References 1 through 4 in my 2015 article show how to do that.  I'm afraid scope_creep's IT experience, and possibly that of, have created ignorance of the way of handling old printed refs in WP.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Part of "the way of handling old printed refs in WP" includes the use of multiple page numbers (ask a grandparent about this archaic concept). An example of how to do this is reference 4 in "Backup", an obsolete version of Joe Kissell's PDF book that the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences has been allowed to publicly post.  Note my discovery that you can put parenthesized text immediately after a page number entry, preceding the next comma if the entry  is not the last in the "pages" parameter.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In 2017 had a penchant for making up his own rules and claiming they were Wikipedia rules. However I'll let others decide whether that penchant continues to be applicable to this case. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * DovidBenAvraham You are not involved in this and it shows a bad light on you that you have decided to take part. The reason I stopped interacting with you, is that you convert every backup related article you work on into a how-to page, including the one your working on now and no piece of advice I gave you was taken. That was 2 years ago.  scope_creep Talk  17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The context in relation to the above, that after three attempts to remove text that had been copied wholesale from the Retrospect manual including associated marketing terms that included defining commons terms in the article instead of wiki-linking them and placing 130 of the term Retrospect in the article, of which 48 was removed and 82 remain the references. In the current Enterprise client-server backup article in the Revision history, 18k was added to the article from the Retrospect manual @ 01:20, 11 November 2017, Copied "Main features" section from 10:31, 26 September 2017 version of "Retrospect (software)" article; copied needed refs from earlier sections.  scope_creep Talk  10:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as the "relatively high quality ref [that] was removed" by Lqqhh, here it is in all its glory. It is the caption under a Culture Picture Galleries photo in The Telegraph; I don't think I need say any more.


 * In other news, I see is still keeping up his strength by jumping to unjustified conclusions. Yes, indeed, I copied the Enterprise client-server backup article from the "Retrospect (software)" article nearly two years ago.  I then removed all mentions of the application name from the text (it's one of 4 backup applications used in the references), and that text was gone over by u|JohnInDC for 6 months while it was the last section of the "Backup" article.  He didn't denounce me for plagiarism, because using a properly-referenced term from an application's User's Guide isn't plagiarism—except when u|scope_creep is   making up his own rules.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You folks like diffs, because they are immune to archiving, so here's a diff that approximates the section of the "Retrospect (software)" Talk page I linked to above.  (Because of subsequent clarifying re-arrangement of the Talk page involving movement of comments out of their date sequence, it is only an approximation of the section I directly linked to above; ignore any comments in the preceding section and in the subsequent "'Favorite Folder'" section and its "Consensus" sub-section.)  Note that u|scope_creep is operating under two "off-the-wall" misconceptions about Wikipedia rules:  The first misconception is that the use of a product name in itself is advertising, marketing or public relations.  The second misconception is that "it is not acceptable to use branded language", by which he means "refer[ring] back to the language used in the [user] manual [for a piece of software], instead of searching for a term on WP"—by which in turn he means "text that had been copied wholesale from the Retrospect manual" as he says in his 10:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC) comment above.  If scope_creep really wants to follow through on his first misconception, he should delete all 32 main-text mentions of the phrase "Time Machine" from the "Time Machine (macOS)" article—because "Time Machine" is a term thought up by marketing people (almost certainly including Steve Jobs) at Apple.  If he really wants to follow through on his second misconception, he should delete most of the links in the "Windows 10" article—because they are links to other articles that in turn refer back to Microsoft user manuals.  How could anyone have written any article about enterprise client-server backup applications, since there is as yet no common industry terminology for their features?  IMHO scope_creep should be forced to take a test on Wikipedia standards as they actually are, and be banned from editing articles he didn't write if he fails that test.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've experienced 's over-protectiveness of articles he/she has contributed to (see this revert performed to my simple tidying-up). He/she said they "will revert every time". And today he left a message on my talk page saying that an article I've been working on should pretty much be obliterated from Wikipedia. Just my tuppence. - <span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em"> NewTestLeper79  talk  17:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your not involved in this <span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em"> NewTestLeper79  talk  . You removed salient information from the Ettrick Bay article and replaced it will lower quality content, including removing content which you didn't understand. You never came to talk page the whole time. The article in question that the editor is being talking about is Yarmouth, Maine which is being populated with more than 50% of non-notable information. A discussion had already taken place several weeks ago when the editor was warned that it would need significant pruning. Essentially everything that happened in that town, since it came into existence is being packed into that article. It is my understanding which I tried to communicate the editor was that such articles tends to get deleted over time and restarted as no editor wants to work on such large article, so it is deleted as part of WP:TNT.   scope_creep Talk  17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since this conversation has started the FA article entry has been reverted by another editor. What a shambles.  scope_creep Talk  17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * All these editors are really decent.  scope_creep Talk  10:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, that's very disappointing. The user made a series of completely false allegations against me, apparently springing from a total failure to understand what I actually did in a number of edits. They misrepresented my edits to an administrator, who took them at their word and has since behaved very unpleasantly towards me, including threatening to ban me. The user has shown no understanding that their behaviour was problematic. But three days later, it seems that nobody bothered to do anything about this report. Lqqhh (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The user is continuing to attack my edits for nonsensical reasons. See . Lqqhh (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and spamming my talk page long after I've made it very clear they are not welcome there. Lqqhh (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Spamming my talk page yet again, this has crossed a line and is now clear harassment. The user should surely be blocked for their incredibly unpleasant and disruptive behaviour. Lqqhh (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing the word "famous" from General Douglas MacArthur article, his famous "I Shall Return" speech, from a FA article. That is two independent editors who have reverted on the article. Outside consensus.  scope_creep Talk  11:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor has again reverted on the Douglas MacArthur removing the word famous.  scope_creep Talk  11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about art and design so that's out of my remit, but I have started a discussion on the MacArthur talk page, which is what yous all should have done some time ago. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone had dealt with the user's disruptive edit warring when I first reported it, that secondary edit war could have been avoided. Lqqhh (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Scope creep has indeed followed Lqqhh to several articles (e.g. Doug Ellis, Durchmusterung) which have nothing at all to do with either of the topics already mentioned here, reverting for spurious reasons such as "unsuitable for lede when mentioned in body" (not what MOS:LEAD advises), "no need for definition" (a revert in which Scope creep restored a Wiktionary link which Lqqhh had improved), "No referenced added and direct quote removed which is referenced" (the "direct quote" which Scope creep restored was blatantly promotional). The last one Scope creep tried to justify by claiming "every bit of prose added as sentences must have a reference", which is not at all how WP:V works, and besides the "famous" descriptor they're so bent out of shape about does not have a reference where it definitely should as it's a subjective qualifier. As far as I can tell Scope creep is in the wrong all over the place here even before we get to the multiple 3RR violations. I already have a tab open with block settings for Scope creep, someone convince me I should push the close button and not the block button. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * well, they're taking part in the MacArthur discussion. You know...? ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, good, then I'm going home. Next time I'd like to see that without needing to be reported to administrators first. the next time I see you following an editor around mass-reverting their constructive contributions on multiple unrelated articles, I'm not going to ask, I'm just going to block.  another editor's edit warring is no excuse for you to edit war back, and if you keep doing it you will be blocked too. If you encounter another editor behaving like this again, do not respond in kind, just leave them to it and contact an administrator instead. Filing your report here was a good place to start. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my finger has been hovering over a block button for who as a new user has been throwing his weight around with a marked lack of civility - apart from harassing me as well (and that's the reason of course why I can't block them). I have little time for users new or old who game our policies by disingenuously leaving the impression they don't understand plain English.  There are better ways of resolving disputes without arrogant postings to noticeboards. I won't characterise here on who of the two editors is in the right or wrong - I'll let the noticeboard decide, but anything more than a trout for either or both of them would be excessive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the administrator to whom User:Scope creep totally misrepresented my editing: . It seems to me the administrator, based only on the word of User:Scope creep, decided that I must be problematic and instantly became so dogmatic about that that they could no longer correctly interpret my actions. I cannot let their astonishing broadside against me here go with being corrected.
 * A cursory glance at my edits would have been enough to see that what User:Scope creep wrote bore no relation at all to any edit I had made, and yet they replied "A cursory scan of the history tells me you are probably right", and then shortly after that threatened to ban me.
 * The idea that I could be "throwing my weight around" is laughable. What possible "weight" do I have? In what possible way was I throwing it around?
 * Marked lack of civility - where exactly?
 * apart from harassing me as well - that is simply outrageously dishonest, an accusation out of absolutely nowhere.
 * disingenuously leaving the impression they don't understand plain English. - where did anyone do this?
 * arrogant postings to noticeboards - somebody broke a rule, I reported it to the relevant noticeboard. In what possible way is that "arrogant"?
 * Given these incredible attacks against me, for improving some articles with care and attention, I think my contributions to this encyclopaedia are at an end. Lqqhh (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Butterflycrowdwiki reported by User:ST47 (Result: blocked as a sockpuppet)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 911859141 by ST47 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 911830325 by Velella (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 911807029 by Velella (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 911730393 by Velella (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:
 * User appears to be connected to the subject of the article, and is repeatedly adding content of a marketing/promotional nature. I have checked earwig and while there are some snippets that were copy/pasted or closely paraphrased, the whole thing doesn't appear to be a copyvio. Rather, this is likely undisclosed paid editing. User:Velella initially reverted these additions several times, I noticed it in recent changes, and reverted once. The user has received warnings related to their edits, 3RR, and UPE, but has not ever edited a talk page. ST47 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * May I support this report. I have just logged back on to make just such a report and am grateful to for filing this. I fully endorse what has been written above. Three editors have been involved in trying to maintain "their " version of the article. It is my belief that this is one paid editor socking.  Velella  Velella Talk  19:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, they're blocked as a sockpuppet now by, so this report can be considered "closed". ST47 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

User:IndependentOpinion reported by User:GreenC (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

for 36 hours. El_C 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mxnkey72 reported by User:Blomsterhagens (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A new user with a political POV, does not respect the wikipedia process rules. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. I respected everything you just think everything is political. Mxnkey72 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC

. Please stop edit warring against multiple users, Mxnkey72. Use the article talk page to try to get consensus for your changes, instead. El_C 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Lazy-restless reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The diagrams are not solely based on Wunsch's theories. It represents the remained version of the section. I yh"
 * 2)  "Don't see any problem with these twos, according to the undeleted parts."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 911596530 by Flyer22 Reborn: User:Crossroads1, I don't see any single of your this edits are rational to the actual policy of ever known wikipedia to me. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 906986281 by Nemo bis (talk): I think you both are making your own theory of the word fringe (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Why the article has been cut down */ new section"


 * Comments:

In the earlier edits he was bringing back more material, but he has brought back the diagrams four times. Me and another editor agree they should not be there. I have pointed him to WP:NOR both on talk and in two edit summaries. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Be sure to check his talk page - he's been in trouble multiple times before for a variety of reasons. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 01:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Tharogas reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:12 UTC 21 August " Undid revision 911789563 by Kansas Bear (talk) Please don't revert the changes without giving a reason. For the 10th time, the old edit's citations were irrelevant"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 911788576 by Dr.K. (talk) i'm not deleting anything, i'm just changing a false information with a correct one."
 * 3)  "typo"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 911779418 by Dr.K. (talk) the edit was correct, and the citations were relevant."
 * 5) Revert by IP sock 78.94.15.98
 * 6) Revert by IP sock 78.94.104.146
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ottoman Empire. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ottoman Empire. (TW★TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ottoman Empire. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The named account and two sock IPs are removing the Persian language from the article. The named account came to my talk with PAs. The named account needs a block. Dr.  K.  04:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not removing it from the article. I'm removing the Persian language from the common languages list for it was not a common language. I also give 2 citations but apperantely nobody gives a damn about it here!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharogas (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 01:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)