Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive395

User:Pawpur reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This SPA has been causing problems ever since he started, and clearly has no intention of following the rules, such as 1RR in this case. zzz (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Two corrections: I self-reverted in regard to the July edit so i did not break the 3RR rules that Signedzz is claiming. Also I'm not a SPA I've edited at least 8 other articles besides the Trump racial views article in the past month or so. This user Signedzzz has been harassing me ever since i began editing the Trump racial views article. If you check my talk page you can see i warned him to stop the harassment and false accusations he made against me but I chose not to report him at the time. He has some sort of vendetta against me but i'm not sure why. Other users like JFG have corrected him (on the talk page for the article in question) but he continues to act very aggressively on that specific article. Pawpur (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do file a report for harassment - I insist, if you are going to throw around the accusation. zzz (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just harassment it was also false accusations that you appeared to make on my talk page. I'm only bringing it up here since you decided to be very aggressive and report me after I made an edit earlier today that you immediately reverted 2 mins after i made the edit. Pawpur (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No diffs, but harassment and false accusations as well now - ironically. zzz (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The diffs are not needed, any user can read my talk page where they will see how you and another aggressive user named SPECIFICO harassed me and where you claimed i misquoted you when i didn't. You also made a false accusation and smear in filing this report by saying that I "clearly have no intention of following the rules" when the opposite is true, any user who checks will see that I have followed all the policy and rules and even self-reverted when you requested that I self-revert and yet you still report me here when i made one revert earlier today. Pawpur (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You did misquote me. That is indisputable. I don't know why you want to claim otherwise, particularly here on an admin page. Do you think I was aggressive when I wrote "Please don't do that"? Or was it something else I wrote? I think it is important to clarify this since you keep repeating the accusation. zzz (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I quoted your own words ("make sure people understand the rules") and then you made the false and nasty remark "don't misquote me".
 * That wasn't my words though, was it. You are claiming that "Please don't do that" was not only aggressive but "nasty"? I'm glad that's sorted then. zzz (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One more very important issue forgot to bring up is that Signedzzz used a dishonest edit summary for this edit...everything is CORRECT(not incorrect like he claimed) i.e. Trump was referring to illegal migrants (reliable sources show this) and "some journalists" is also accurate and in line with reliable sources. I realize i should have discussed on talk and waited 24 hrs to revert but i got upset that he was being dishonest and aggressive with his edit summary so i acted rashly w/o thinking. if i need to be blocked for 24 hrs or 48 hrs i guess that's fair but i hope i can have a second chance...thanks. Pawpur (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think at least a lengthy topic ban is called for, in view of the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude clearly on display. I don't appreciate the personal attacks, which would be unacceptable even if the topic was not under discretionary sanctions. Besides which, the user clearly lacks the competence to edit, particularly in controversial topics. zzz (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW if "reliable sources show" that Trump was referring to illegal immigrants then I suppose the Donald Trump article also has it wrong where it gives the same quote, see Donald_Trump. Are those editors dishonest too? zzz (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We block-conflicted. I've indefinitely blocked the sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * copy that. El_C 14:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:ProudCitizen reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1, marked as 'minor change'
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice of AN:EW report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4

Comments:

The user has been here since 2017 and is well aware of our 3RR rules as well as those to avoid edit-warring. They have chosen to follow none of them, especially BRD. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Update

The user posted a message to me after I notified him of the complaint:
 * I am wondering, do the penalties escalate if the reported user threatens to sock through one of their other accounts to revert to their preferred version? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the user has stated their intention to sock, I'd also like to ask the page be protected from new users for a while, as well as reverting back to the version before the socker started editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the user has stated their intention to sock, I'd also like to ask the page be protected from new users for a while, as well as reverting back to the version before the socker started editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. And what gives this guy the right to force through *his* preferred version? The information is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudCitizen (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC) - may I revert the page back to the pre-ProudCitizen version, or could you do that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I made it a month due to the threat to sock and personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done so. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Nice4What reported by User:Avatar317 (for violating the ONE revert rule) (Result: 72 hours Unblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2a02:2f01:5cff:ffff::50c:3058 (talk) (see the talk page. Removed unsourced and inaccurate map)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Nice4What (talk | contribs) (Restoring map)
 * 2)  Nice4What (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 911902786 by Avatar317 (talk) Where do you think these restrictions are for minors...? They're not. It's for all abortions (excluding special exceptions) in each state.)

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

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

Comments:

. This is the second time the user has been blocked for violating 1RR. They are strongly cautioned against doing so a third time, or the block duration is likely to get significantly more lengthy. El_C 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User had multiple alerts on their talk page, but not this specific one. I misread. Unblocked with apologies. El_C 03:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:WayzataOne reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The legal name of the lake, and the way Minnesotans refer to it, is Lake Calhoun."
 * 2)  "Lake Calhoun is the legal and exclusive name of the lake."
 * 3)  "Added to the historical context."
 * 4)  "Adding historical information."
 * 5)  "Adding relevant information."
 * 1)  "Lake Calhoun is the legal and exclusive name of the lake."
 * 2)  "Added to the historical context."
 * 3)  "Adding historical information."
 * 4)  "Adding relevant information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bde Maka Ska. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Bde Maka Ska. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I have tried to resolve this on his own talk page. Nothing so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor may have stopped the edit warring, but still see no response to talk page notice other than the following paragraph. Crossing fingers that it's over but will place addendum here if it starts again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This user is going throughout Wikipedia making disruptive changes of place "Lake Calhoun" wherever Bde Maka Ska is being used if you check their contributions. I don't think they're here to edit without being disruptive.  on camera  06:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They have returned to edit warring on Bde Maka Ska.  on camera  06:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed they continue to edit war. I tried and hoped it would be otherwise but it seems to be a vandalism only account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Mz7 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you... my finger was getting tired hitting the vandalism rollback button. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:68.194.40.88 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: 72 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:


 * I warned the IP that I would block them if they restored the disputed content and pointed them to the article talk page where there is consensus not to include the name. They restored it. I blocked them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sávy reported by User:Realmmb (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 2)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 3)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 4)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 5)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 6)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 7)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 1)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
 * 2)  "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mohun Bagan A.C.. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Mohun Bagan A.C.. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has not responded to multiple talk-page warnings. Keeps adding non-free images on a page where the images are not meant for educational purposes, rather marketing purposes. REAL MMB (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

. User's failure to communicate demands a lengthy suspension from editing. The user is also cautioned that the next block is likely to be much more lengthy, up to and including indefinitely. El_C 17:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sush150 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sush150 reverted File:Mission Mangal.jpg to an old version"
 * 1)  "Sush150 reverted File:Mission Mangal.jpg to an old version"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I do not understand why he keeps distorting the nearly square-shaped poster to make it look rectangular. His comments about quality are "lame", and he has reverted my proper uploads multiple times. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I suggest you attempt to discuss this further and take advantage of your dispute resolution resources, if needed. (I also note that this report has several fields which were left blank.) Good luck~ El_C 17:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sampath123456789 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Nagarjuna Sagar Dam:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of cities in Telangana by population:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of cities in Telangana by population. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Nagarjuna Sagar Dam as well"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nagarjuna Sagar Dam. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not an explicit 3RR violation, but the user is continuing the same disruptive behavior of dynamic IPs, who persistently changed the location of Nagarjuna Sagar Dam and the Census population figures at List of cities in Telangana by population, after both articles were semi-protected. User has been warned multiple times and ignores any form of communication. User also ignored comments about similar unexplained arbitrary reorderings earlier this year. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user continues to reorder lists for no apparent reason, while never participating on article talk pages or leaving edit summaries to explain their motivation. They have been here since 2017 but do not seem to understand our practices. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CreatingCat reported by User:146.90.39.236 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) vandalismca&diff=912275887&oldid=912275824

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User began reverting my edits with a personal attack, and has continued without proper explanation, restoring large quantities of ungrammatical, unencyclopaedic, and otherwise deeply flawed material to the article. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "I asked for an explanation, and wanted to talk it out with this person, however, he decided instead of explaining what he was doing to me, I thought he was deleting many different things that weren't necessary for deleting. If he explained, I wouldn't have broken the rule of not more than 3 reverts. I'm sorry, however, he should have explained before literally turning me into the police. Also, can you please explain 146.90.39.236 (talk), about why YOU didn't respond to my requests of talking it out, and instead deleted it. creativeRaja''t@lk 12:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)" "Thank you for understanding. Also, thank you for clarifying that clarifications should happen on the article talk page. creativeRaja''t@lk 12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)"
 * I don't see a personal attack, but I do see that there has been no attempt to resolve this dispute on the article talk page(and the notification of this discussion is not an edit warring warning). Please discuss this with each other; if this editing dispute continues, you may both be blocked for edit warring. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Reverting vandalism" was obviously a personal attack, and an extremely insulting one. They have not offered any reason for their reverts; there is no dispute, and thus nothing to resolve, until they explain themselves. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is arguably a mischaracterization of your edits, but not a personal attack(name calling). 331dot (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing arguable about it being a mischaracterisation, and name calling is precisely what it is. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If that were a personal attack, there would be few unblocked editors left. Criticism of your edits is not a personal attack, personal insults and name calling about you personally would be. This isn't a debate.  I highly suggest that you take your concerns to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling obviously good edits "vandalism" is not "criticism". Calling me a vandal is a personal attack. I think you need to revise WP:NOTVAND and WP:NPA. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "obviously good" to you is not to others, it is up to you to make a case for your changes, preferably one based in Wikipedia guidelines, and justify why your changes are needed. Mischaracterizing your edits is not a personal attack(I see no statement such as "146.90.39.236 is a vandal").  I have no other comment on this matter, I strongly advise you to proceed as I have stated. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You saw that I left edit summaries, yes? And "reverted vandalism" is exactly equivalent to "user is a vandal". If the edits are not vandalism, it is a personal attack. Other users are welcome to disagree with my edits. Nobody is welcome to insult me by calling them vandalism. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A range which covers the filing IP, 146.90.39.0/24 has been blocked three months by User:Bbb23 as a checkuser block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SuperJew reported by User:Huldra (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:14, 24 August 2019: SuperJew rv to "rivers of Israel"
 * 2) 22:16, 24 August 2019 same revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Comments:
 * Notified
 * Asked to self revert,

. The article has not been placed under 1RR (there needs to be a mainspace edit notice for that). El_C 22:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1RR now applied to the article via Template:Editnotices/Page/Wadi Og. El_C 22:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is obviously some threatening here, as you can see on my talk page with Huldra saying Please self revert, or you will be reported. A page about a nature reserve shouldn't be assumed to have 1RR on it, there was also no problem with the page until Huldra came looking for conflict. I would also point out that if anyone is against rules here, Huldra is the first, breaking WP:BRD: she was bold, she was reverted, and then she didn't discuss. As you can see she also made two changes so was the first to break 1RR. Anyway I'm going to self revert, as I have more important things to do than deal with a petty user who doesn't understand how countries work. But her threatening while breaking rules herself should definitely be discussed. Will also add that Huldra threatened and reported me (22:21) for breaking rules, and only after that marked the page as 1RR (22:22). --SuperJew (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not required to self-revert retroactively, but neither is Huldra required (though she is encouraged to) subscribe to BRD. Unless you simply wish to withdraw from the dispute. Huldra did not threaten you, she simply warned you that the rules, as she understood them, were in breach. I don't see why the dispute cannot be calmly resolved on the article talk page. If needed, fall back on your dispute resolution resources. El_C 22:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SuperJew reverted an article about a Wadi on the West Bank with the edit line: "which is part of the state of Israel": How much is there to discuss? If SuperJew  actually thinks that the West Bank is "part of the state of Israel", then I'm sorry, but I dont  think there is any chance that the two of us will agree, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to agree for consensus to emerge. That's what's outside input is for. El_C 23:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have amended the categories to be neutral and not support a side. A saying of "do this or you will be reported" is a threat. Nowhere was there an attempt to talk, explain, or reason. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure she understood the rules exactly (especially after looking at her contributions, seeing she edits many topics which are related (more and less so) to the Arab-Israel conflict) and added the 1RR notice after claiming I broke the 1RR rule. --SuperJew (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Giving you the opportunity to self-revert what she understood was a 1RR violation before being reported for it is not a threat. It is due warning. El_C 23:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:BamZ412 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Davey2010 */Do not mess around with my signature anymore and leave as it is. No more reverting my signature to the plain one when I first joined Wikipedia. This is very serious and don’t take this as a joke! I don’t want to have a similar argument like the Singapore Changi Airport before again. No more reverting it and leave it as it is!"
 * 2)  "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* Davey2010 */Reverted to before."
 * 4)  "/* Davey2010 */"
 * 5)  "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
 * 6)  "/* Davey2010 */"
 * 7)  "/* Davey2010 */"
 * 8)  "/* Cavey2010 */"
 * 9)  "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
 * 10)  "/* Cavey2010 */ new section"
 * 1)  "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* Cavey2010 */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Davey2010. (TW)"

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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring on D2010's talk page having asked to stay away (re: obsession with gussyfying signature). What started off as, I guess, lighthearted and innocent has become a timesink for everyone concerned. The >60% edits to userspace are ominous; but that may be for another occasion. —— SerialNumber  54129  16:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just this moment taken them to ANI so if anyone prefers this route to ANI then I'd be happy to remove it. – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 16:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, ditto; something must be done, the only question is what and where... ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha exactly!, I'm kinda hoping someone at ANI will either do something or point me here, But thanks for filing this anyway it's much appreciated :), – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 16:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * SQL Query me! 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mazewaxie reported by User:Kaykayjohnson1234 (Result: Malformed)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to: []

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unacceptable and ill-conidered use of administrator privileges. Kaykayjohnson1234 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Non-Admin Comment: First of all, Mazewaxie is not an administrator. Second, this report is a mess.Crboyer (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * | Here is the last version reverted. See what you make of it. Crboyer (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I only reverted him once because he changed a lot of stuff without seeking consensus first. That's no edit warring. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chandy of Pakalomattom and User:Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill reported by User:Chad The Goatman (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

and very probably 1 or 4 more of these anonymous users to is the likely the same person.

Previous version reverted to Mar Thoma Syrian Church: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the Chandy of Pakalomattom's reverts:
 * 1) 22:18, 24 August 2019
 * 2) 22:25, 24 August 2019

Diffs of the Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill's reverts:
 * 1) I can't find evidence yet, but his newly created 'theology' page in progress 'Marthomite' theology has seemly do definitive connections with that Church's page in anyway.

Diffs of the 122.174.87.2's reverts:
 * 1) 07:58, 24 August 2019
 * 2) 12:37, 23 August 2019

Diffs of the 27.97.172.21's reverts:
 * 1) 22:13, 23 August 2019

As times these events happen in the last two-three days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) Not yet for all the Users and anonymous contributions pages', but however on of its accounts' [Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill] talk page is oddly asking to deleting its account, then later in the same area, now suddenly wants to renamed its username for some odd reason, on the same day?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1) Yes for one time as means to want temporarily lock the page down for a short while, but didn't happen for no good reason.

Comments:


 * Result: Mar Thoma Syrian Church is fully protected one month. Anyone may ask for unprotection if agreement is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:IKamalkandel reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912419923 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912340086 by Amakuru (talk) Articles should have both Positive and Negative viewpoints. Criticism is rarely used but as Jaggi Vasudev; himslef is very controversy person in real life, this section is required."
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 912325237 by Amakuru (talk) Why Criticism is getting removed? Added sources also."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 912314257 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Added Criticism"
 * 7)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 8)  "Citation needed for few changes"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 2)  "Citation needed for few changes"


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


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


 * Comments:

The material being added/restored was first fought over by User:Frederickarcher whom I blocked twice for edit-warring in July. At this point, though, I consider myelf WP:INVOLVED with respect to taking any further action on the article. Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 72 because of their deletions at this page. I need to look at the sock issue. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The user, who has obvious competence issues, didn't delete any part of my report, as far as I can tell. Initially, they added some comments and at the same time added some crap. I was trying to remove the crap but retain their substantive comments. I kept edit-conflicting with them because they kept changing their edits. At the end of it, I rolled back all their edits because there was nothing left but crap, and I didn't think it was my responsibility to try to salvage the earlier substantive comments, which mainly accused me and others of not being "neutral". So, the only "deletions" the user did was of their own comments, all this done, of course, in consecutive edits. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reduced the block. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller  talk 18:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 13 February 2019‎

Diffs of Springpfühler removing Bosnia and Romania:
 * 1) 01:01, 16 February 2019‎
 * 2) 17:00, 16 February 2019‎
 * 3) 11:58, 19 April 2019‎
 * 4) 14:07, 29 April 2019‎
 * 5) 02:54, 30 April 2019‎
 * 6) 00:48, 7 May 2019‎
 * 7) 12:49, 7 May 2019‎
 * 8) 01:16, 12 June 2019‎
 * 9) 15:41, 16 June 2019‎
 * 10) 18:02, 10 August 2019‎
 * 11) 18:52, 10 August 2019‎
 * 12) 15:04, 23 August 2019‎
 * 13) 15:28, 23 August 2019‎

Diffs of DavideVeloria88 inserting Bosnia and Romania:
 * 1) 12:26, 15 February 2019
 * 2) 13:57, 15 April 2019
 * 3) 11:12, 29 April 2019‎
 * 4) 17:28, 29 April 2019‎
 * 5) 18:46, 6 May 2019‎
 * 6) 09:50, 7 May 2019‎
 * 7) 17:42, 11 June 2019‎
 * 8) 11:21, 10 August 2019‎
 * 9) 12:30, 23 August 2019‎
 * 10) 15:17, 23 August 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:57, 7 May 2019 for DavideVeloria88 and 12:58, 7 May 2019 for Springpfühler

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The two edit warriors discuss with each other here, to no avail

Comments:

In a strong contender for lamest edit wars, users Springpfühler and DavideVeloria88 have spent the last six months reverting each other back and forth over whether Italian is official in Bosnia and Romania. Both of them have reverted at least ten times already; I warned both users over this highly disruptive edit war already back in May but both of them just ignored it and carried on edit warring. This never-ending edit war between two user who obviously don't give a damn about Wikipedia rules has become seriously tiresome. I'd recommend both a considerable block from WP, and then topic banned from Italian language for at least a year. ( And as a note to User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88: Please do not even think about bringing your argument about who is right here. It's irrelevant. Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and regardless of whom may be right about the issue, you're both equally guilty of edit warring Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Update I now find that despite being aware by this discussion, and despite a comment by EdJohnston, User:Springpfühler continues to edit war, this time at a different language article 16:08, 23 August 2019, 17:02, 23 August 2019, 22:23, 23 August 2019. The behaviour seems identical to that which brought about my report, hence mentioned here for the closing admin to consider. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh well if correcting a wrong information is "edit war", than ok, I was not aware of it. I thought that it was a purpose of Wikipedia writing reliable and more than all correct information, not just everything for the sole reason that someone asserts it. Surely if it is like that, if improving or correcting contents is a fault, than I am guilty. And as I did it for other languages too, maybe I am even guilty of knowing them. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit warring has nothing to do with being right or wrong (see WP:BRD. Don't say you're not aware of it; this is exactly what I pointed out to you on your talk page months ago: "being right is not enough to edit war" 13:00, 7 May 2019. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you can consider so what has happened regarding Italian language, but the other correction I did was independent from it, and regarding the fact that the link provided in Serbian language does not assert what is written in the information box. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I left notes on the talk pages of both User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88. Each of them is risking a block unless they promise to wait for agreement. Springpfühler's response here is inadequate, since they demonstrate they don't understand the edit warring policy. A block for Springpfühler is the obvious next step unless they promise to wait for agreement on each article's talk page. On each of the disputed articles, they must do this before editing the article again. They have been conducting an edit war that ranges across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The "war" with this user happened just in the Italian language page, surely not in others. I do not want to write what I think myself, I am ready to accept what the majority thinks, no problem. --Springpfühler (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88 are warned. Either can be blocked if they revert again without first getting a consensus for their edits on the talk page. You could ask at WP:DRN whether the mention of a language in the ECRML treaty justifies using space in the language's own article, as DavideVeloria88 is asserting in this edit of Italian language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:216.194.50.202 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912452826 by Aranya (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912452755 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 912452665 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 912452558 by 75.169.26.166 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 912452460 by 75.169.26.166 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 912451812 by Aranya (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edits are also vandalism on a biography of a living person. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

. Tens of revisions redacted. Page semiprotected. El_C 19:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ythlev reported by User:Wadaad (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 06:21, 14 August 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:20, 26 August 2019
 * 2) 12:42, 26 August 2019
 * 3) 13:42, 26 August 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:23, 26 August 2019‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:15, 26 August 2019‎

Comments:

recently placed a new map on the United Nations wikipedia page that includes a substantial number of various unrecognized states. I restored the page to the previous version as there is no strong support to include unrecognized states on the UN page. It essentially contradicts the whole purpose of the UN (diplomacy and bilateral systems of recognition). I opened up a discussion on the talk page, requested to seek consensus first, and gave  a warning, yet he still continues to edit war. Despite the warning he reverted the page again. I wish that administrators were to look into this case. Wadaad (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The above user reverted my edit first without legitimate reason and also without any support. This is an act of WP:OWNERSHIP. They also violated 3RR first. Ythlev (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Both editors have reverted three times in the last 24 hours. Rather than blocking both for edit-warring, even though neither has violated 3RR yet, I am warning both that any further reverts may result in blocks. You should remain on the article Talk page and hopefully other editors will contribute to the discussion., I strongly advise you to be careful. You were blocked twice last month for edit-warring, the second one for a week, and your attitude regarding the blocks demonstrated virtually no understanding of your behavior. If you are blocked again for edit-warring, it may be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaim89 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912564582 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912562095 by JesseRafe (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 910673212 by JesseRafe (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

You've already been warned to stop adding trivial gripes about your personal unencyclopedic experience and anecdotes, now you are edit-warring. Please stop and review the links on your page about how to contribute meaningfully. JesseRafe (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

By Chaim89: Why shouldn't a politician's own public defamatory statements that were made recklessly and intentionally not be part of a public record? This isn't hearsay or anecdotal; these are statements that are still on Adina Sash's social media pages today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaim89 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely for BLP violations and edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Taka tanimura reported by User:WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (this revert was un-reverted by VPL Strathcona 2 months later in in June 2019)
 * 2)  (this revert was un-reverted by IP address 4 days later on 25 August 2019)
 * 3)  (this revert was un-reverted by IP address within the hour, on 26 August 2019)
 * 4)  (this revert was un-reverted by IP address within the hour, on 26 August 2019)
 * 5)  (this revert was un-reverted by me 10 hours later, on 26 August 2019)

Comments:

WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please pardon me as this is my first time learning the concept of a "diff" and the first time using a "noticeboard"!
 * The user "Taka Tanimura" is the inventor of the "Hierarchical Equations of Motion" which is the title of the article.
 * The Talk page of the article shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hierarchical_equations_of_motion:
 * 1) On 17 September 2018 there was concern about Taka Tanimura making "conflict-of-interest" edits.
 * 2) On 9 June 2019, a different user mentioned that he or she removed what they called a "major" conflict-of-interest edit by Taka Tanimura
 * 3) On 26 August 2019, an IP address noticed conflict-of-interest edits and plead for help, asking the community what we can do about Taka Tanimura's COI edits.
 * 4) At 02:11, 26 August 2019, after Taka Tanimura already made *four* reverts, he was issued a warning on his talk page, and told to "please stop": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taka_tanimura
 * 5) At 12:11, 26 August 2019 Taka Tanimura still went ahead and reverted the page again anyway, now for a *fifth* time. His "edit summary" suggests that he has in fact read the previous user's edit summary as well, since he responded to it.
 * Having looked at the other sections in this noticeboard and the outcomes, I see that "indeffed" or "banned indefinitely" is an option, and I think it is what is appropriate here, because a 24 hour warning is not going to be enough. This user is clearly self-righteous and thinks that since he invented the method, he can have 100% control over the article about his method. He keeps removing the contributions of two authors, when in fact he himself (user Taka Tanimura) said in a 2015 publication (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00488?rand=oyatp5gw) that he used the contributions of those authors.
 * Three different users (2 users and 1 IP address) raised concerns about his edits, before I stepped in today (so I am now the 4th user that has had to spend time on this, at least).
 * If the disruption continues a topic ban can be proposed at ANI. – bradv  🍁  18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Deacon Vorbis reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61608245&action=history

Comments Violation of the three-reverts rule. The user has a decent grasp of policy, hence the violation is likely willful. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It was necessary to restore the CSD tag for a maintenance deletion (G6) after cleaning up a mess of an attempt at manual archiving. If you had simply talked to me about it first, none of this would have been necessary.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"G6. Technical deletions This is for uncontroversial maintenance…"

- Wikipedia community

Sapienti sat. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the archive you created. It looks to me like the bot is not archiving as it should. However, when you manually archived it, you archived material that was very recent. I suggest you figure out what's wrong with the bot. I also don't see why the Talk page should be archived so infrequently. Once a year is not typical, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No further relief sought here, provided that both the edit warring and the abusive deletion under the (manifestly inapplicable) G6 tag are now recorded into en.Wikipedia archives. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover. The was a bot’s posting from March, 2016. More than three-years-old. The oldest human message archived by me was of August 17, 2015—four years old—and was a forum-style thread of a borderline acceptability. The “a mess of an attempt at…” (emphasis mine) innuendo reflects a personal rejection of me and isn’t based of facts, whereas  am not obliged to “talk to” experienced users urging them to abide the policy, such well-known policies as no edit warring and WP:deletion policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant “the newest” – mistyped. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and I apologize for misunderstanding the sequence of events. I have restored your original archive and the Talk page after the archival., do not undo my work. At the same time, I again urge someone to do something about automated archiving for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? I set up auto archiving after a messy attempt at manual archiving (which should basically never be done for main space articles unless there's some specific need to sort out specific subtopics from enormous amounts of material).  The bot is working fine, but it won't run for the first time until midnight UTC.  The one-year time is how old threads have to be before the bot will consider archiving them, not how long the bot looks at the page.  And considering that I set minthreads to 10, even older threads will stay because there haven't been 10 in the last year.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, and you're welcome to restore the auto archiving for the future, but there was nothing wrong with what Mrsi did except they didn't archive enough in my view. There's no reason to keep such old threads, regardless of what you think the minimum should be. I would change it to 90 days and a low enough minimum so that no really old threads stick around. I would do it myself, but I'll make a hash of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I already did set up auto archiving, but you took it back out. Trying to do it manually is wrong, especially when someone is trying to pick and choose which threads to archive.  And trying to do it after a manual attempt has been made is just liable to confuse the bot and not get the right headers added, and so forth.  Archiving is already enough of a nonstandard mess on Wikipedia that we don't need people trying to start it manually in their own, idiosyncratic way on top of the various common ways of doing so.  Please restore it back to the way I had to make sure the bot gets set up correctly.  I've made these sort of fixes before and never once had any sort of problem or objection to it.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deacon_Vorbis requests restoration User:MiszaBot/config which directed   literally. What the H⋯ see the diff if don’t trust Incnis_Mrsi’s word ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Hadron137 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Second request for comment on user's talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am attempting to edit the lede in the article List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft following the guidelines at WP:SALLEAD. The user User:WilliamJE has reverted each of my attempts to do so. I have tried to initiate a dialog on the user's talk page, and also on the article's talk page, but the user has refused to engage (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). Nonetheless, my edits continue to be reverted by the user. Hadron137 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But I'm not reporting a 3-R violation, I'm trying to resolve a failure to discuss. User WilliamJE insists that a concensus is needed before I can contribute to an article, but the user won't discuss it on the talk page. Why do I need consensus to make edits that are supported by the MOS? Hadron137 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft includes an answer to your question. Quoting the MOS or linking to the MOS in the lede of an article is not standard practice. You can continue to discuss your concerns on the article talk page, or you can accept that other editors have weighed in and they prefer the current version. – bradv  🍁  02:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:46.208.236.135 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912781636 by SuperWikiLover223 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912780777 by SuperWikiLover223 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 912780640 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 912780478 by Ifnord (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Fried rice. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Erases previous warnings from talk page. Ifnord (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an edit and I described what I did in the edit summary. This user undid the edit without explaining why, and then had the gall to leave me a message falsely accusing me of not explaining my edit. Then they have repeatedly spammed my talk page with templates. Evidently, they are trolling. 46.208.236.135 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue to assume at least a little good faith, as I do not believe you are actively trying to harm or vandalize the encyclopedia. BUT, you have used a lot of personal attacks and have not responded to multiple requests (from at least three other editors) to discuss the change you are aggressively trying to make on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:121.44.183.127 reported by User:Roger 8 Roger (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring by IP and 3RR just outside 24 hours Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by SanAnMan (talk) to last revision by QuestFour (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912670148 by SanAnMan (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 has been warned previously about edit warring, and he continues to remove valid cited sources from multiple articles, South Park (season 1), South Park (season 2), South Park (season 3), South Park (season 4), and South Park (season 5). He attempted to explain his actions on my personal talk page claiming he was following examples of other WP:FA. As a matter of full disclosure, there is also a WP:SPI filed for this user for having an alternate account without cause. SanAnMan (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For note, the issue appears to be sources' reliability. WikiProject_Television/FAQ has a list of currently considered RS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested a compromise for the dispute on 's talk page. QuestFour (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both and  are warned for edit-warring. Discuss it on a talk page, and use dispute resolution if necessary, then implement the community consensus about the reliability of the source. Any more edit-warring by either of you will result in a block. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SlumSlumy reported by User:General Ization (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  "He was convicted of sexual assault not abuse."


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop vandalising the page or you will be banned - if you disagree with accuracy discuss in talk page."
 * 2)  "Stop edit warring and discuss."
 * 3)  "There was no discussion of this change on talk page????? - Stop having an edit war. My change is more accurate."
 * 4)  "Fixed edits with source relating to actual offences committed. removed broad terms and used specific information. simplified initial sentence."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 912876838 by Mitch Ames (talk) Child abuse is a broad term. Sexual assault is the actual act."


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


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

The offending of George Pell is a contentious issue in Australia currently whereby many Catholic persons have attempted to downplay his acts. I provided a source which stated he is convicted of child sexual assault, a discussion was had on the talk page where it was agreed to continue that sentence order. I edited the sentence to accurately record the crimes Pell was convicted of. Users such as General Ization and Yahboo have attempted to downplay his offending and constantly undo my referenced edits. I tried to discuss it on the talk page however they refused to and continued to revert my edits. They both should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumSlumy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and making a legal threat. See also the abuse filter log.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Harry182B reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsubstantiated defamation. Laird Almighty deliberately using a false source in an attempt to support their persistent abuse of this page"
 * 2)  "Source provided by Laird Almighty bears no resemblance to defamatory text they continue to add"
 * 3)  "Continued defamation by Lard Almighty. User appears to have a conflict of interest. Source provided is not relevant to text in any way"
 * 1)  "Continued defamation by Lard Almighty. User appears to have a conflict of interest. Source provided is not relevant to text in any way"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * for 1 week so the issue can be worked out on the talk page. If the material under contention is to remain, it needs to be well sourced. – bradv  🍁  14:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Protection was lifted after some socks were blocked, and the issues are being discussed on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:41.164.7.178 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: 72 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Bismillahi rahman nir rahim (In the name of allah, the beneficent, the merciful)"
 * 2)  "Bismillahi rahman nir rahim (In the name of allah, the beneficent, the merciful)"
 * 3)  "Bismillahi rahman nir rahim (In the name of allah, the beneficent, the merciful)"
 * 4)  "Bismillahi rahman nir rahim (In the name of allah, the beneficent, the merciful)"
 * 1)  "Bismillahi rahman nir rahim (In the name of allah, the beneficent, the merciful)"


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


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

Blocked for 72 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Joeldwright reported by User:Nblund (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

Note: This page is under a WP:1RR restriction. I broke that myself in order to revert the first instance. However, given the nature of the accusation, the ongoing talk page discussion, and the extremely weak sourcing, I think WP:BLPREMOVE applies. Nblund talk 16:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Joeldwright blocked for 24 hours, and Nblund cautioned for pushing the limits of WP:BLPREMOVE. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:74.12.123.253 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Live-Action Screen Actors */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */"
 * 6)  "/* Plot */"
 * 7)  "/* Plot */"
 * 8)  "/* Plot */"
 * 9)  "/* Plot */"
 * 10)  "/* Plot */"
 * 11)  "/* Plot */"
 * 12)  "/* Plot */"
 * 13)  "/* Plot */"
 * 14)  "/* Plot */"
 * 15)  "/* Plot */"
 * 16)  "/* Plot */"
 * 17)  "/* Plot */"
 * 18)  "/* Cast */"
 * 19)  "/* Plot */"
 * 20)  "/* Plot */"
 * 21)  "/* Plot */"
 * 22)  "/* Plot */"
 * 23)  "/* Plot */"
 * 24)  "/* Plot */"
 * 25)  "/* Production */"
 * 26)  "/* Production */"
 * 27)  "/* Production */"
 * 28)  "/* Production */"
 * 29)  "/* Production */"
 * 30)  "/* Production */"
 * 31)  "/* Production */"
 * 32)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 33)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 34)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 35)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 36)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 37)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 38)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 39)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 40)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 41)  "/* Trailer Criticism */"
 * 42)  "/* Reception */"
 * 43)  "/* Box Office */"
 * 44)  "/* Box Office */"
 * 45)  "/* Box Office */"
 * 46)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 47)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 48)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 49)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 50)  "/* Production */"
 * 51)  "/* Plot */"
 * 52)  "/* Plot */"
 * 53)  "/* Plot */"
 * 54)  "/* Plot */"
 * 55)  "/* Plot */"
 * 56)  "/* Plot */"
 * 57)  "/* Plot */"
 * 58)  "/* Plot */"
 * 59)  "/* Plot */"
 * 60)  "/* Voice Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 2)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 3)  "/* Production */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */"
 * 6)  "/* Plot */"
 * 7)  "/* Plot */"
 * 8)  "/* Plot */"
 * 9)  "/* Plot */"
 * 10)  "/* Plot */"
 * 11)  "/* Plot */"
 * 12)  "/* Plot */"
 * 13)  "/* Voice Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Voice Cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Joey King. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Peter Rabbit (film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * for disruptive editing shortly after previous block expired. – bradv  🍁  23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a vandalism-only account, and I suggest that it be blocked indefinitely. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:83.85.47.175 reported by User:Wyatt2049 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912862760 by Drmargi (talk) G-A-M-E O-V-E-R. Why do you insist that the added main actors for series four and five were only recurring? The BBC website listed Rebecca Front and Max Bennett as Main for Series 4, and for Series 5 additions goes the same. Jeez, this looks like a contest. History can't be altered simply because the present is different."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912738266 by Drmargi (talk) Once again I revert you - this Wikipedia page and the edits are for the entire series, not only the final one. So to remove former main actors and place them in the recurring section is ridiculous. Check some official pages for it."
 * 3)  "Half of the main cast of Series 5 was "degraded" to recurring - that's blatantly untrue. They were all Main characters on the BBC website. And Monk Adderley and Lady Whitworth were both main in Series 4, the latter also a guest in Series 5."
 * 4)  "Re-added Max Bennett and Rebecca Front, who *were* main cast in Series 4."
 * 1)  "Re-added Max Bennett and Rebecca Front, who *were* main cast in Series 4."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Poldark (2015 TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

. Only three reverts are listed — you need four in order to violate 3RR. El_C 18:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Umno22 reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring:

Comments:

See the user_talk page and talk:History of the Slavic languages for details. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In terms of specific WP:3RR I'm not sure Umno22 has breached it. They've only made 4 sets of edits to the article, and 1 was the original set of changes. There may be POV-pushing issues, Umno didn't provide edit summaries for their long set of edits, and would be better served by continuing the article's Talk Page discussion - 1 initial point doth not a discussion make. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C 18:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:General Ization (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:




 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The names are already in the infobox and I have restored the longstanding version that explains the title of the article."
 * 2)  "Removed name calling"
 * 3)  "Restored"
 * 1)  "Restored"
 * 1)  "Restored"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Prostitution. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 3)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 4)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 5)   "/* August 2019 */"


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


 * 1) (On editor's Talk page)
 * 2) On a warning editor's page)
 * 3) (On my talk page)


 * Comments:


 * I was warned for warring and didn't return to the page. I was then reported in spite of not having continued to edit on the basis of my attempts to discuss.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The 'diffs of edit warring' are of a discussion. Absurd.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've misread the heading: Diffs of edit warring .  General Ization  Talk  18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

. Only three reverts are listed — you need four in order to violate 3RR. El_C 18:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review the conversations at the supplied links. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.   General Ization  Talk  18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not only my opinion that this editor is edit-warring (and wikihounding the editor whose edits they were reverting, see also and ).  Inviting  to see if they agree that the editor's attitude shows no understanding of why their multiple reverts were inappropriate and that they would have continued if not brought here.  General Ization  Talk  18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reping  General Ization  Talk  18:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with General Ization comments above. It seems NEDOCHAN is determined to try and revert edits previously made by Anthony22 at any cost, and will revert any other editor's edits to achieve that. I understand Anthony22 has made disruptive edits on some articles, but making further disruptive edits to revert Anthony22 edits is equally as bad. --John B123 (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whenever there are issues that go beyond strict 3RR enforcement, the comment section is where you outline these. But you left that section blank. El_C 18:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed that you would actually use the links I contributed in the body, which I thought made the case very clearly! Noted for next time.  General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who said I didn't? At any case, it's always good to summarize your position, especially when listing edit warring that falls short of violating 3RR. El_C 18:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Maestro2016 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 912915414 by Gotitbro (talk). News18 is not a "blog" and is WP:RS as per WP:ICTFFAQ. See Talk:Bollywood."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 912893654 by Gotitbro (talk). News18 source is not a blog. See Talk:Bollywood."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 912811446 by Gotitbro (talk). News18 qualifies as RS. See Talk:Bollywood."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user already warned of 3RR on Talk:Bollywood and told to discuss before engaging in edit warring, still proceeded with the reverts. Same 3RR violation on Pakistani pop music. Gotitbro (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You need 4 reverts to go over 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Both and  have each reverted three times at both articles. Both are warned against further edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Gaimrox reported by User:Kigelim (Result: No violation; reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&oldid=911050301 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&oldid=912524225

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&diff=911632600&oldid=911050301
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&diff=912378712&oldid=912100833
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&diff=912518446&oldid=912458848

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

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

Comments:

The user has less than 10 edits. In first edit, blamed for WP:COI, than claimed a book not accessible online cannot be used as a source, than finally decided the page doesn't exist. Trying to WP:AGF but editor makes it hard to not suspect it. Kigelim (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor blamed again for COI on my talk page. Kigelim (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * . Gaimrox is not the only editor removing your changes to the article, and the consensus at the Talk page is the entries you're adding are inappropriate. You are warned that your disruption and edit-warring at the article may lead to a block if you do not desist.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor Gaimrox is the only one removing RedisTimeSeries entry. It was accepted by the others while there is disagreement about additional entries to the list. Kigelim (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The normal cycle is BRD: Bold insertion, reversion, then discussion. You first inserted it, it got reverted, then it is time to discuss and get to consensus on the talkpage.  If something gets reverted you clearly do not have said consensus.  Insisting to put it back in is hence the edit warring, not the removal.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by SanAnMan (talk) to last revision by QuestFour (TW)"
 * 2)  "rmv from table, provided above"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by SanAnMan (talk) to last revision by QuestFour (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User continues to remove valid cited source of episode air dates from table just because he doesn't think they need to be there, see also my talk page. Other users have also restored the cite to the table and user continues to remove them. User has been warned of edit-warring and continues to remove the cited source. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Vikhtrrez reported by User:Samee (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Don't give me links, tell me exactly what to look for. My sources have been taken as legal fact and used in courts of law across the world to prosecute multiple people. There is nothing wrong with updating a 'long-standing' version. Feel free to report: it's only going to hurt you because it will bring attention to how you're acting in a very imperious manner without showing the willingness to learn and discuss. Read my sentence again. I said you have not address my source on the discussion page"
 * 2)  "More obfuscation. You haven't been able to prove the problem with these sources both while reverting my edits here and on the discussion page. Once again, I invite you to participate on the discussion page in a forthright and open manner. If you continue to act in this dictatorial manner, I will be forced to continue to push forward the truth. I have already given you a month to present your argument but you haven't made the slightest bit of effort.No more dictatorship. At least not on this pag"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 912916374 by [[SpeciMore of the same obfuscation. You're never going to actually specify what you don't like about my resources nor are you going to provide your own resources. Stop telling me what to do when you act as a dictator over this page and many others. Consensus has been achieved on the discussion page. Don't talk about consensus and stop trying to control the page when you've shown not the slightest bit of inclination towards contributing to the discussion."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is consistently reverting edits and making personal attacks and hurling accusations of noncooperation and “dictatorship” to impose their version. They labelled another user’s edit (that undid their edit) “vandalism”. While long standing version can be changed, it needs to be done through consensus and their edit is clearly inappropriate as the “highly legal” source they are constantly enforcing does not back their claim. They’re unceasingly alleging me of using “tactics”, ownership etc whereas their only area of interest is "Maryam Nawaz" samee  converse  15:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for 72h for BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn reported by User:Quantum Knot (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femme&oldid=912587009

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femme&diff=prev&oldid=912641752
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femme&diff=prev&oldid=912954850

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=913075603&oldid=912980885

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femme&diff=912903907&oldid=899107591

Quantum Knot (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

. The page is not subject to 1RR. Why would you list a report with only two reverts? You do realize that you need four reverts in order to violate 3RR, right? El_C 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cirquish reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 913376616 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 913375903 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 913000628 by Dorsetonian (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * – 31 hours for 3RR violation by User:ST47. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

49.195./16 reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See

(09:24 UTC)
 * 3RR violation:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, multiple urgings to start discussing at talk pages, to no avail.

Comments:

Warned about edit warring at 09:21 UTC.

--Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up: in a separate response to the same activity by this IP user, as well as similar activity by two others IPs I had just requested temp semi-protection of the article: WP:RFP before I saw this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * don’t think that protection is appropriate. It is a content dispute. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's embarrassing, because User:Oshwah just protected it. Should I ask for her to undo it? Or what now? I suppose the edit-warring will just start up again in 2 days when it expires, so we should probably still move forward here anyway, or just wait out the 2 days? Sorry, didn't see you had posted this request around the same time that I did. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's a content dispute that becomes edit warring between involved parties, full protection should be applied in order to allow the users to discuss the issues on the article's talk page. If they refuse or if the edit warring continues after it expires, I have no issue with implementing blocks or other administrative action in order to stop the disruption and prevent it from continuing to occur.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I guess it can be a content dispute, and disruption at the same time, if they just go blindly ahead ignoring everything and everybody, and refusing to discuss. So, I don't know. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oshwah. I'll have a look again tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The diff shows that the warrior have an above-mean grasp of wiki formatting. Can anybody identify the master – why does s/he edit as an IP? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Morbidthoughts reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

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

Comments:

The reported user has sought over several months to exclude any mention of the BLPs birth name outside of normal practice and policy. This is only the most recent occurrence where they felt emboldened to violate 3RR.
 * Not only are removals due to BLP concerns exempt from 3RR, your sense of timing seems to be wrong, initially 3RR warning me after a second revert in 24 hour period and then filing this pointy notice on a third revert in retaliation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * . See concurrent WP:AN thread.  Sandstein   19:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:6406:5a00:e4f5:96c7:a364:b4e0 reported by User:65.78.8.103 (Result: Blocked)
The Challenge: War of the Worlds 2:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:. Diff at

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Revision as of 17:29, 1 September 2019
 * 2)  - Revision as of 17:34, 1 September 2019
 * 3)  - Revision as of 17:35, 1 September 2019
 * 4)  - Revision as of 17:37, 1 September 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

2605 is reverting to a version filled with WP:BLP violations —uncited claims of purported last names — and, equally troublesome, is deleting RS citations!

Please note that while removing BLP violations, as I was doing, is exempted from 3RR, I have still chosen not to break 3RR as a show of good faith. This other editor is restoring BLP vios.-- 65.78.8.103 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both IPs are edit-warring, and 65. is forum shopping (see WP:ANI).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would note correcting BLP vios is exempted from edit-warring, and I never went over 3 in any case. Plus, he hadn't yet gone to 4RR when I came to ANI, so I'm not sure how that's forum-shopping when the 3RR vio hadn't happened yet. (I was still writing the ANI report when the fourth RR happened at 17:37.) In any case, I think the larger point is deliberate BLP vios and removing RS cites. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These are not the kinds of "BLP violations" that are exempt from edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With all respect, purported last names is a personal-life detail. I don't believe we can make just throw in names we think we heard somewhere or saw on a fan-wiki. And, again, I responsibly stopped while the other editor went to 4RR in order to delete WP:RS cites. I'm not sure why that seems to be OK or, at the least, is being unremarked upon.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Alexf. Any admin who is convinced that some reverts here are covered by BLP might do something further, such as protect the article. The AN complaint was closed by User:Caknuck without action, deferring to Alexf's block of the IPv6 editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Whitloe reported by User:ThatMontrealIP (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revert of Lyndaship Sept 2
 * 2) Revert of ThatMontrealIP September 1
 * 3) Revert of ThatMontrealIP September 1
 * 4) Revert of ThatMontrealIP September 1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Note on 3RR, September 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Please don't add unsourced material, August 3rd
 * unsourced material has been reverted, August 3rd,
 * formal warning not ot blank sourced content, August 3rd
 * Again adding unsourced material 19 August,
 * Quesiton abotu COI and reminder again not to add unsourced material. 1 September.

Comments: SPA account whose sole purpose is to expand Raquel Rabinovich, often with unsourced material. Some of the additions are actually OK, however many are unsourced and the user pointedly refuses to stop adding such material. In the diffs above they persist on replacing a well-sourced shot list with a longer unsourced list. After bringing 3RR to Whitloe’s attention, they waited until the 24 hours 36 minutes to perform the 4th revert. Disruptive all around. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. This user seems to be very insistent on having their own version of material included in the article. When they revert, they seem unaware they could be removing references added by others. They have not addressed any of the complaints about unsourced content. They have never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Misbah3102 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: 24hr & Full PP)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It isn't. the bengali-assamese script has got new alphabets which is completely different from bengali script"
 * 2)  "bangla script comes first as recognised unicode script on this language/script true before bengali-assamess script. it must be thete"
 * 3)  "Since kamarupi is a contested claim, so it should stay there with a question mark for readers' understanding. Secondly you have to add bengali script before bengali-assamess script as bengali script is a unicode registered first digital script in this L/S tree which later registered as bengali-assamese script. thanks."
 * 4)  "the said claimed doesn't have any valid research nor has a proper/any citation. thus for readers' comprehension, a question mark is thought reason to be attached."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Illegal immigration to India. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* September 2019 */"


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


 * Comments:

The user also edit warred in Illegal immigration to India article and displays strong POV pushing. Also attacks users by accusing them of promoting hatred as can be seen in this edit summary Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * both pages, 2 days. <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Vishnu Panicker reported by User:GPL93 (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on User:Vishnu Panicker/sandbox. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* September 2019 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on User:Vishnu Panicker/sandbox. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has removed G11 CSD tag eight times despite being warned about doing so and being warned about edit warring. GPL93 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for advertising (himself).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Princeofearth reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added her Nickname in double quotations per Wikipedia instructions here regarding Nicknames commonly used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography"
 * 2)  "Added her nickname in double quotations per Wikipedia instructions found here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:NICKNAME&redirect=no"
 * 3)  "Added Content. Added preferred name or nickname in normal format. Removed redundant and unnecessary content."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Nicknames and quotes */ new section"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Cori Gauff. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 4)   "/* August 2019 */"
 * 5)   "/* August 2019 */"


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


 * Comments:

This seems to be a new user who may not fully understand wikipedia protocol. They have only edited Cori Gauff and Jessica Pegula but they insist on going against MOS and consensus in the situation of nicknames on both these articles. I did my very best to explain it to them on my talk page, and on their talkpage. I pointed them to Wikipedia Guidelines and an administrator's discussion who actually explained it to us at the following archive. Other editors have also reverted them or their anon IP aliases (which I did not report).

The Jessica Pegula article now has an addition on makeup with no source that I'm afraid to remove.

I've done the best I can to make them understand but it seems to be fruitless. Can someone set this person straight and fix the articles? Cori's article is very high profile right now with all the attention she's getting at the US Open, and I'm done with this editor. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User @Fyunck(click) has Violated Wikipedia's 3 revert rule and has reverted my edits 3 times within 24 hours just because they disagree with the content I added when I added commonly used nicknames to the Wikipedia pages of Cori Gauff and Jessica Pegula. Both Cori Gauff and Jessica Pegula use their nicknames instead of their legal names on both their Official Twitter and Instagram pages. To omit their nicknames from their Wikipedia pages would make their pages incomplete and they would be missing vital information about these 2 individuals. I have read that an editor is not suppose to revert another editors edits just because they disagree with the content added and given that the content added is definitely not vandalism in no way shape or form. I also posted on the talk pages of Cori Gauff and Jessica Pegula about adding the nicknames and their is no consensus to not add the nicknames. Please help me resolve the dispute with user Fyunck(click) so they don't continue to revert my edits when I'm trying to add constructive and vital content to Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that you are allowed to make multiple reverts, but other editors are not? Please review WP:3RRNO before you answer. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 I have not made one single revert of any other user's edits. The only thing I have done on Wikipedia is adding content to pages. The Username Fyunck(click) is the one who keeps reverting my edits and has Violated the 3 revert rule. Me edits are the ones that keep getting reverted. User Fyunck(click) is the violator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * When you add some content and another user removes it, they are reverting you. If you then put it back, you are reverting them. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. User:Princeofearth is risking a block if they edit again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Regarding 'Cori' versus 'Coco', there is currently a move discussion at Talk:Cori Gauff. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I am trying to do as you instructed and obtain prior concensus on the talk pages of Cori Gauff and Jessica Pegula before making any more edits on those pages however, I continue to have problems with the users Fyunck(click) and Dorsetonian and I'm not sure if this is the same person with 2 usernames or if they know one another but I don't agree that they should be disparaging me on the comments they made on the talk page of Jessica Pegula when I  opened a discussion on a page move per Wikipedia guidelines to get prior concensus on moving that page. Those users commented on the talk page that they have had bad faith problems with me and said that I was a bad nominator and I was trying to disrupt Wikipedia just because I opened a discussion on a page move like another user did with Cori Gauff on her talk page. Every constructive edit I have made to those pages has been removed by user Fyunck(click) and I believe that user edited a Twitter link that I inserted for Jessie Pegula on her talk page so that it would point to another person's Twitter page to make me look bad and I had to go back in and edit the link again to correct it and I felt that I must respond to their disparaging remarks about me on the talk page of Jessica Pegula. Those 2 users seem to have a personal grudge against me and I don't know why. Is there a code of conduct rule on Wikipedia some where stating that users shouldn't disparage one another? Princeofearth (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2.26.145.10 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/911706413

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/913959190
 * 2) Special:Diff/913962604
 * 3) Special:Diff/913963880
 * 4) Special:Diff/913964265
 * 5) Special:Diff/913967849

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/913964077

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

Comments:

The issue is the meaning of the technical term extinct language. The IP is now trying to edit that article to suit their POV. Favonian (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Netabcd123456 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Indeffed sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 913964475 by Greyjoy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Intro change"
 * 3)  "Change to information"
 * 4)  "Description changed to represent accurate information."


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


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

Seems like a pretty obvious COI as well, user appears to be trying to remove any negative information and turn it into a copy of the trusts's website. User Jw2790 is possibly a sock/meat puppet as they showed up after original user started getting warnings and is making the same edits.  Grey joy talk 09:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I've indeffed both socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Excelsoo28 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please don't changes it!"
 * 2)  "source:Rashmi Sharma, owner of Rashmi Sharma Telefilms"
 * 3)  "Please don't change this information, i received this information from the owner Rashmi Sharma"
 * 1)  "Please don't change this information, i received this information from the owner Rashmi Sharma"


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


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


 * Comments:

Very probably WP:COI edits as well, editor mentions talking with owner, no response left to messages about that concern either.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Excelsoo28 is warned they may be blocked the next time they add unsourced material related to Rashmi Sharma Telefilms, or revert on the named article without getting prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:SuperWikiLover223 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have tried to get this editor to address said changes on the talkpage (and somewhat in edit summaries, but they also direct to the talk page) and I tried to reach out to this person over and over again to no avail. I would have been more sympathetic if the user explained their edits in more detail, but that did not happen. There isn't a breach of 3RR, but this editor is making very disruptive edits. Instead of discussing them in the talk page, Avaya1 is almost ignoring the edit summaries and the talk page, and instead repeatedly pushing their edits forth with no discussion. They made similar edits to the Roy DeMeo article, such as this one stating that the Mafia lord was a "serial killer" with no reference to back it up. The edit summaries that Avaya gives are not helpful at all, as they constantly state that a book is not a reliable source, yet when I questioned Avaya on it, there was no response other than a repetitive "Carlo's book is not an RS". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperWikiLover223 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both Avaya1 and SuperWikiLover223 are warned. There is no 3RR, but each of you has made about six reverts of the article since late August. Blocks are likely if this continues without getting prior approval for each edit on the talk page. Consider an RfC or use WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Youre going to have to explain that one to me sir. I get warned even though i tried bring DISRUPTIVE editors to a talk page? Thats hilarious. Ill oblige though.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans ‎ reported by User:CodexJustin (Result: No violation)
User:Snoogans is edit warring on multiple pages with multiple editors over the past several days. The multiple pages are being reported in this single report for purposes of seeing it all at one time and in one place in this report. CodexJustin (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Edit Warring sequence by User:Snoog:, ,

These are the three pages on which User:Snoogs is currently warring with 3 different editors for which he has been notified by the different editors on his Talk page, they are in reverse chronological order with links to the edit warring notifications.

Dave Rubin

Edit warring (personal attacks and harassment) with User:Springee notification posted here.

Mitch McConnell

Edit warring with User:EdJF notification posted here.

Peter Navarro

Edit warring with User:CodexJustin notification posted here. Agreement between 3 editors on the Talk page which User:Snooganssnoogans appears to be ignoring. He has been asked to stop edit warring and make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. His next edit puts him at 3RR. He has been asked to stop edit warring against agreement between 3 editors. Now he continues to revert with no edit comment field at all. I request and will wait for someone at admin to instruct correct policy for this page for a currently serving Director when 3 editors are in agreement that the current lede section being installed by Snoogams is biased and slanted. All 3 editors agree on this and would prefer a neutral version of the lede section which Snoogams appears to fully oppose. He has no consensus for his opposition, and he is opposed to the current agreement among 3 editors for a neutral version of the lede section. In the process of previously typing this report, a 4th editor then reverted Snuggums at the same time that an older version of this report was being posted. With the 4th revert User:Snoog apparently started to temporarily relent, and the older version of this report was removed before I could add the links for the edit warring sequence.

 Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration ‎

Apparently, edit warring on 3 pages was not enough for User:Snoogs and yesterday he began reverting on this Foreign Policy page as well, before I could add the edits for the UN report on US involvement in Yemen from over the week-end reported here and here  and here. User:Snoogans beginning edit warring on a fourth page now starting with this edit.

With multiple editors being affected by the edit warring from User:Snoogs, is there something that can be done to contain his reverts long enough so that at least the blank section template requests for the Foreign Policy article can be addressed without being reverted. The talk page for User:Snoogs has had no other interactions for the last 5 days other than editors notifying him of his edit warring conduct. He apparently has a history of edit misconduct dating back to November 2016 when he was blocked by EdJohnson for personal attacks and harassment. CodexJustin (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: My comment on Snoogan's talk page was not in reference to edit warring, rather what I saw as a personal attack against aimed at. I'm not involved with the other articles. Springee (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation Snoogansnoogans has not violated 3RR on any of the pages, and the most recent edit (apart from the Donald Trump one, which was only a single revert) was 36 hours ago. Indeed, the reverts on Peter Navarro were six days ago.  Blocking is preventative, not punitive, and is usually to prevent current disruption to an article, which isn't occurring at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lagoona Blue reported by User:Coolak (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913777844

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913838639
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913896252

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913962519

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

Comments:

The user keeps insisting that there is an extra Winx Club member named Roxy, even though it's not true, and everyone who watched the cartoon knows that. Roxy is just a secondary character. If you go to www.winxclub.com, you will also see six Winx Club members on top of any page, and it doesn't include Roxy. Also, sources provided are ridiculous, like "it was mentioned on some DVD cover/promo", etc. I decided not to undo their reverts for the third time and engage in an edit war, instead I'd like someone to warn the user. Coolak (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

P. S. I'm the main editor of the featured article ru:Winx Club in Russian Wikipedia, and such statements would be definitely not supported there. And the English article will never become featured with such secondary character fans editing it as they please. Coolak (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, what do you mean no violation? The information is misleading, so should I proceed with reverting their edits further? And then report them again when they make the 3rd reversal? That's what you mean? Coolak (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Use dispute resolution. If you continue to revert, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, but it's obviously misleading information. What can be discussed here? Besides, at Talk:Winx Club, a 3rd user supported my opinion already, so we already have a 3rd opinion. Coolak (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lagoona Blue here. I don't know what you mean by a 3rd opinion, since only you've been responding. I'm happy to discuss further, or link more sources, if you want. (Judging by the comments above, I think you've overlooked all of my links on the talk page, where I linked to the previous versions of the WinxClub.com website where this seventh character was originally featured at the top of all pages' headers, and her bio on the website clearly says she is a "new entry in the Club".) I hope we can resolve this soon. Lagoona Blue (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lagoona Blue, looks like it is you who overlooked a thing. There was who supported my opinion. As for me, I didn't overlook anything. The links provided, including the above mentioned link, do not directly state that Roxy is/was part of Winx Club, but what's more important, it is clear from the cartoon itself. And this questionable and outdated synopsis isn't notable at all to be even mentioned, and also it's misleading. The story of Season 4 on the official Winx Club website even mentions her separately from the Winx ("The Winx and Roxy..."). I included this fact in the article, but again, I strongly believe that there's completely no point in mentioning the fact that back in the days there was such a misleading synopsis at all. Coolak (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please move this discussion back to the talk page. When I responded to the single-edit accounts, , and , I was under the impression they were accidental posts by you, and even still, this isn't a "vote" scenario. I understand it's your opinion that the "outdated" character isn't noteworthy, but this paragraph specifically covers the characters who have participated in the Winx Club, and it is very clear from the sources that a seventh character was specifically referred to as the "new entry in the Club" (and many variations of that name, "seventh fairy", "new Winx fairy", "Roxy will join the Winx group", etc). I'm not sure how a plot summary (on the same website that clearly stated her role back in 2009) that highlights her separately from the other Winx somehow invalidates all of the old references/statements from the producers (especially since the site uses this same wording to highlight other members of the Winx...example, Season 6 story, page 8 uses "Bloom and the Winx" to highlight Bloom, when she is still a Winx member). Lagoona Blue (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove your statements, I added some other ones and clarified yours, to not mislead the readers. None of your sources say "Roxy is a 7th Winx Club member", they say that she "joined the Club", so that's exactly what I've written in the article instead of your original research. If you keep reverting my edits even when I'm not removing your text but clarifying it to comply with WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, you will most definitely be blocked. This is some Roxy fanboy/fangirl sort of thing, please move it to some fan wiki. Coolak (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P. S. please bear in mind that I've never said that the statement from the plot summary "invalidates" anything, so please don't attribute me with something I've never said. When we have two contradicting facts about some topic, we must comply with WP:WEIGHT and mention both of them. Not only you violate that, but also WP:OR when you make a statement about Roxy being "the seventh member" when there's no such text in your sources. I only edited your text to exactly represent what your sources say ("she joined the Club"). Coolak (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, please move this back to the talk page rather than making more edits to the section. Both of my posts from the 3rd and 4th of September have gone unanswered. Your changes are simply not backed by the source: Bloom and Roxy are not "separate from the Winx" because the Story pages both say "(name) and the Winx". As I said back in April, I'm happy to have a constructive discussion to fine-tune the wording/choose which sources to use, from the many that say variations of the same thing (that Roxy is the seventh fairy to join the Winx Club): "seventh fairy", "will become part of the Winx group", "new Winx fairy", "new entry in the Club", "joins the Club", etc. Lagoona Blue (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: Editor reminded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Back in January, Dilidor's edit warring over terminology led to a lengthy discussion and a formal WP:3O request here. The 3O closed in favor of the "Native American" terminology over Dilidor's preference; at least 4 editors also weighed in favor of that determination. Since then, Dilidor has engaged in a slow, months-long edit war to restore his preference. For the last several weeks discussions were attempted here to no effect. Their misleading edit summaries - saying that the consensus was for their preference, and that subsequent edits introduced errors - suggest that Dilidor is unwilling to let this dispute be handled through Wikipedia's normal consensus-building processes.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My most recent edit had nothing to do with "native American". There were numerous errors introduced in subsequent edits, as I stated in the summary. Furthermore, you failed to notify me of this posting on my talk page. —Dilidor (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is really not the place to make false claims about your reverts. Your edit changed nothing but the Native American terminology you've been edit warring over for months.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Twas not a "false claim"; I was looking at the wrong edit. I will self-revert the edit which you have cited. —Dilidor (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That works. I assume we'll have no more of this and this report can be closed.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dilidor is reminded that a consensus in January 2019 preferred the term 'Native American' for these people. If Dilidor removes the phrase 'Native American' again without getting a new consensus first, a block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful, if it is relevant or germane to the purposes of WP, if  explained the reasoning/rational behind their objection to the usage of the words Native American or preference for the word Indian. See for instance Native American name controversy and its talk page. Perhaps a well justified argument can change the consensus, see also Manual of Style perhaps take it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for commentOldperson (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) is still at it here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peach_Tree_War&diff=prev&oldid=914161752, reverted Native Americans to Indians and inserted Indians after names of tribes.Oldperson (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is stalking. Stop stalking me. —Dilidor (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you. Because you consistently reverted all instances where I replaced Indian with Native American, I went to the Native American name controversy talk page, for guidance,  and  and from that page I found my way to this page. And voila, what do I find but you involved with someone else in the same subject of the Native American name controversy That is hardly stalking. Just like posting on Teahouse arouses curiosity and results in editors checking out their contributions. It has happened to me more than once and will happen again. Your persistence on refering to Native Americans as Indians, across articles brings attention to yourself, especially when editors share the same interestsOldperson (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Poetic1920 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914247378 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) Please stop reverting! Make constructive changes."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914247172 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 914247007 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk)  No reason to undo --"
 * 4)  "Reverted to August 28 version by confirmed editor after vandalism."


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


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

Editor is adding inappropriate external links to the article. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The editor has now responded to my comments but has not engaged in any actual discussion of their changes. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – It appears the editor has begun to discuss at Talk:Hollis Robbins and is willing to make changes to conform to our standards. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Editors reminded)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I asked the user to give a citation from "Walter Laqueur. Black Hundreds: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia" to confirm his phrase, but he didn't do it. He gave another phrase from this book on his TP, which I translated into English and placed in the article , but he returned his version. There is no his phrase in the Laqueur's book, because he cann't give a citation from this book to confirm his phrase. Aleksei m (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two days ago I made an edit: . After the revert with a request for the source I gave a link to well-known book of Walter Laqueur  Black Hundreds: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia . I believe that this book shows quite clearly that members of the Black Hundreds fought not only against "extremists" but also against Jews and liberals. In response to this, Aleksei deleted the entire piece of text that had been in the article for a long time: . And then he replaced it with another text that removed the mention of the Black Hundreds at all: . Both times I made a revert to a more stable version. To be honest, I studied the contribution of the opponent and I think he is mostly single-purpose.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot show that your phrase is in this book, but return your version. Aleksei m (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I just stop your attempts to delete the long-standing piece of information.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no sources for this information. It was taken by Wlbw68 from Vladimir Purishkevich. Aleksei m (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article talk page would be a good place for these arguments, I am not a mind reader.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want scholarly information on John of Kronstadt, you could do worse than look at this detailed biography 'A Prodigal Saint' by Nadieszda Kizenko which came out in 2000 and was based (in part) on study of archives in Russia. It was published by Penn State University Press. The Google Preview is unfortunately not enough to tell us about his connection to the Black Hundreds. You would need the actual book. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I read the Russian translation and used this book when elaborating the article a year ago. Today it is the best biography, I think. But, unfortunately, in some places the author is inclined to justify the obbject of research, since John is the acting saint in Orthodoxy, and Kizenko works at Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary. To clarify the situation, this Seminary was established by Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and canonoization of John of Kronstadt was the first canonization made by this church.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Nicoljaus and User:Aleksei m are both reminded not to edit war. It is up to consensus on the talk page whether sources are adequate, but the language of WP:BURDEN says "". That would imply that any charges of antisemitism against Father John should have a proper source, one that the person adding the material should be able to quote. At present the link to Laqueur is so vague it is unclear exactly what Father John did or did not endorse. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Telenovelafan215 reported by User:Bradford (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914338137 by Bradford (talk) You said the logo was better when there was no problem with the poster."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914334016 by Bradford (talk) Nothing is wrong with the image"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* El corazón nunca se equivoca poster */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* El corazón nunca se equivoca poster */"


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


 * Comments:

After the problem happened. I decided to ignore using posters for the article, and i decided use the series logo, so that there is no problem to see which poster is better. But the user persists in undoing my editions. Although in his talk page I explained this. Bradford    Talk  19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Only two reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. Also, your report left two mandatory fields blank. El_C 19:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:175.142.138.81 reported by User:Nigos (Result: Semi, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 913913933 by Martin952017 (talk) You are crossing the line Martin. Please STOP !!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Talkback (Talk:List of equipment of the Argentine Army) (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tanks and other stuff */ stuff"


 * Comments:

A very long edit war with and  reverting  and, and vice versa. 175.142.138.81 accused Martin952017 of starting the edit war, although it was originally started due to 's revert. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 06:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Nigos, can you tell what is going on with this article? Since May 16 it looks like one unsourced change after another. It is possible that User:Martin952017 might be trying to make positive contributions. The problem is that they never explain their changes; they have never used a talk page. The only thing that might do any good is a month of full protection. Does anyone have another suggestion? EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Martin952017 and an IP user have been reverting each other for a few months now, and the IP accused him of starting an edit war, although on the talk page one of the IPs said they’ll stop reverting. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 04:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. is warned for edit warring. He may be blocked if he reverts the article again without getting a prior consensus in his favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:122.53.166.163 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914358357 by 2601:644:877F:F6D8:B870:F404:9E8B:539F (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914358251 by 2601:644:877F:F6D8:B870:F404:9E8B:539F (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 914358145 by 2601:644:877F:F6D8:B870:F404:9E8B:539F (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 914357920 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
 * 5)  "/*Alfonso, Calabarzon*/"


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


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


 * Comments:

Engaging in vandalism while edit warring. is also engaging in an edit war reverting it, though they are only included due to the mass of reverts. AIV report exists due to them being recently released from a block (48-hour, assigned 4 September 2019), Other pages also involved in edit war; see contribs. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't edit warring. The other IP's edits are purely disruptive. Please see WP:3RRNO. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:B870:F404:9E8B:539F (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

. Thank you, 2601:644:877F:F6D8:B870:F404:9E8B:539F, for reverting the vandalism. El_C 02:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:70.180.245.165 reported by User:SuperWikiLover223 (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "ridiculous, you are the Indian racist, you can reply on your talk page under the warning I gave you..all I did was put reliable reference sources state the truth and the undeniable fact that Chandrayaan-2 failed...reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 2)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 3)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 4)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 5)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 6)  "I am only concerned about the facts, reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 7)  "nothing superfluous was added, it's a fact clearly stated that the onboard communications equipment malfunctioned, please read this:  https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"
 * 8)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 9)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 10)  "reverting Indian nationalist pov vandalism, it is an undeniable fact supported by all reliable reference sources that India's Chandrayaan-2 mission FAILED, please read this:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/"
 * 11)  "You have been warned about your vandalism and censorship of the truth, it is an undeniable fact that Chandrayaan-2 failed, now go read these reliable sources: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49615665     https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/india/india-moon-lunar-landing-chandrayaan-2-scn/index.html   https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/09/india-chandrayaan-2-landing-attempt-moon-lu"
 * 12)  "this is ridiculous, you do know that it is impossible to censor or cover up the truth that the Chandrayaan-2 mission failed, it's a fact that it failed now get over it and move on with your life, instead of vandalizing this page with Indian nationalist pov and censorship, read this:  https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"
 * 13)  "reverting Indian nationalist vandalism, it appears that multiple Indian nationalist racists are trying to censor the latest news about the failure of India's Chandrayaan-2 mission, for the facts just read this:  https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"
 * 14)  "please refrain from putting misleading pov into the article, the fact remains very simple, India's Chandrayaan-2 mission failed, that's very simple to write into the article, no need to beat around the bushes, please read this:   https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"
 * 15)  "Chandrayaan-2 failed, this is a fact, please read the reliable source:    https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"
 * 1)  "Chandrayaan-2 failed, this is a fact, please read the reliable source:    https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.180.245.165#September_2019


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


 * Comments:

This is an ongoing edit war by two different IPs, edits go way past the 3RR. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Sadko reported by User:Santasa99 (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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments: Edit-warring with removal of sourced prose based on misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding of policies and guidelines.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not in the sources. It is a manipulation. I was willing to give NPOV to the article and make claims reliable. There is just a single source for such a serious issue, which says ZERO on the academy that is academics parts, which I removed. The user is pushing his version and not willing to work together, which can be seen from prior undo pushing with other users, just recently. Sadko (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is User:Sadko's (formerly known as Mm.srb) idea of "working together", best illustrated in his last revert Edit summary: There are no sources for these claims, it reads like original research and hate speech that is bashing, which has a strong tradidion in one part of the medias. That said, I do not need to use TP on this matter because - No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Sadko is warned they may be blocked if they revert again on this article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. You have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. It is easy to see the topic of this article as a battleground for nationalists, which raises the question whether any of your edits might have a nationalist motivation. Your recent edit appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy, if we try to figure out what your edit summary means. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:83.100.186.60 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked: 60h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st warning, 2nd warning (3rd warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is edit warring against use of the word "actress", despite there being no legitimate policy based reason for doing so. They've ignored their Talk page notices and reversions from at least 3 other editors (including myself) on the topic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just my 2c - Actor for male, Actress for women - That's how it's been done for yonks here, Given the IP hasn't used edit summaries or even attempted to discuss it I see no other option than to block here. – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 17:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And they're still at it, now being reverted by two additional editors (that's 5 now...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 60h. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Taranrap reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

No talk-page activity by the warrior. No sourcing. The third edit willfully ignored the warning. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A sort of, after the report: . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation One revert on 2/9 and two today. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:109.152.195.253 reported by User:Centaur271188 (Result: Blocked, semi-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:

This IP has been vandalising the template by removing X note for Scotland, despite being explained repeatedly by  and  ( and ). It looks like the same user whom reported last year, from Geolocate result. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 60h, semi-protected article for a week as this is a dynamic IP. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:1.20.99.89 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
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:

I am reporting this user for edit warring, lying about reaching a conclusion in the talk page, removing my warning to him on his talk page, and excuse me for saying but leaving a edit summary removing my warning saying (F*** O**). 1.20.99.89 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you insist on civility, don't refer to other people's contributions as "lying"! Favonian (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here we go... Rule of thumb: When you falsely accuse people of lying, don't expect them to reply with a smiley face. I am happy to discuss the content dispute, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you will have to present actual arguments.


 * Now for turning myself in: While I did not violate 3RR, I see that a week ago I did violate the 1RR, sanctioned on all articles relating to the Syrian Civil War. It is easy to forget when dealing with such a periphery part of said subject, but I do of course apologize. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Go and sin no more, . For my own part, I vow to check for 1RR restrictions. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kyohyi reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under WP:1RR and a mandated 24 hour WP:BRD via arbitration remediations. This user didn't like the WP:BLUESKY statement that Ngo's false statements were false and deleted it on the grounds that the three sources that said the statements were false didn't say Ngo uttered the falsehood. Which he uttered. Which was false. Per sources. When challenged they claimed a BLP exception to the arbitration remediations on this BLP. When another editor subsequently reverted them, they reverted again. This means they have reverted on an Arbcom enforced WP:1RR page three times in the last day. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

. The user was not given an AE alert. I have now done so. El_C 19:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, they got one in January 2018 that was still on their user page so I didn't think I was supposed to give a second one, or else I would have done it here.
 * Oh, it was yellow then. I stand corrected. El_C 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple re-insertions of BLP violating material. People re-inserting are not demonstrating in the sources where the content comes from (see article talk page) and are linking to essays for content justification as can be seen here.  Removals per blp are not considered reverts, re-insertion of blp challenged material are blp violations per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.  I seriously request that administrators take a closer look at this.  Bluesky is not a valid justification for content on a blp.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have been making that claim despite the fact that several people have demonstrated to you sources already on the page that show Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked people with the hammer to be false. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, one other editor created a synthesis argument, and you merely said it's in the daily dot piece. What content in those sources justifies it, quote it.  I've challenged you multiple times to do so, and you haven't.  Instead you came here.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you link to that, for the rest of us? El_C 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the most recent discussion the claim that the three sources currently in the article, including the daily dot one which really is very explicit, don't establish that Ngo's statement was factually incorrect is patently absurd. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And this archive is also relevant for establishing that there are multiple sources for the claim that Ngo made a false statement. . You should note that the article space did not state that Ngo perpetrated a hoax or even that he lied. Only that what he said was false. Which has been very well established. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the synthesis comment.  here's where Simonm223 says it's in the daily dot.   and here are my requests for content from the source.  The sources in the archive are the same sources in the article.   --Kyohyi (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes the fact Ngo claimed antifascists attacked the far-right protesters with a hammer. Nobody disputes the fact that the hammer attack was initiated by one of the far-right protesters on the bus. Kyohyi's claim that it's synth to say that Ngo's statement, which did not line up to reality, is false boggles the mind. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

— maybe quote directly? BLP has been invoked, so you need to substantiate. El_C 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of what we're using: From the daily dot: "The magic of editing is helping people lie about who threw the first punch." - the lede to the article. Farther down:

Even though he didn’t attend this time, Ngo was again involved.

It began, sort of, when antifa-aligned protesters were recorded attacking a bus carrying members of the violent right-wing militia, the American Guard.

A clip of one masked counter-protester throwing a hammer through the open door of the bus was used by Ngo as proof of antifa terrorism. The video has been viewed nearly 4 million times.

It then shows several tweets from Ngo about the incident.

It then continues:

But the conflict viewed from start to finish answers a question filling Ngo’s replies online: “Where’d the hammer come from, Andy?”

People linked videos from other angles, shared screenshots, and slowed down footage. As it turns out, the man Ngo identified as a victim brought the hammer into the conflict.

He can be seen swinging the hammer from the bus, and it is thrown back after being taken from him. While some have claimed the bus riders acted in self-defense, it is hard to see how they could feel more protected by removing the physical barrier (the door) between them and the counter-protesters. There are then several more tweets copied about the incident before the article continues,

The propaganda machine moves fast, however, and it doesn’t like to fact check.

The edited clip of the bus confrontation was aired on Fox & Friends, Trump’s favorite show. The clip was further edited to show the conflict out of chronological order, clip out the right-wing violence, and highlight the hammer being thrown into the bus.

So basically we have an entire article about how Ngo propagated false information about this incident. But this is apparently not enough to satisfy Kyohyi. Of course, we have two more supporting sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ::This demonstrates that there is more to the story, not what Andy Ngo said is false. There's a difference there. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This article establishes a second source for the fact that the hammer attack was initiated by the far-right protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who initiated has no bearing on subsequent use. This demonstrates nothing on the falseness of Andy Ngo's statement.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oregonian also establishes that Ngo promotes the false claim that the antifascists attacked with the hammer, quotes his tweet where he says that, and then later says:

Though it is somewhat grainy and hard to see, the original video shows someone inside the bus swinging the hammer at counterprotesters before it is wrested away and thrown back into the bus. A separate photo of the scuffle clearly shows that a man inside the shuttle bus had a hammer in his hand and was swinging it.


 * So where, precisely is the WP:SYNTH in saying that the statement Ngo made was false? Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This source says the opposite of what you claim and in fact supports the truth of his statement. I'll quote you the passage "it is wrested away and thrown back into the bus".  And the synth is from comparing a definitive statement with a narrative.  More specifically you're claiming a specific statement is false by using sourcing which makes arguments that an incomplete narrative is being presented.  And that since the narrative is incomplete (read false) then therefore the statement is also false.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The accusation here is that Any Ngo presented a false narrative. If say, Person A attacks B, and then person B retaliates or defends themself, and then you claim "Person B attacked Person A", you are being technically correct on a very superficial level, but presenting a false statement, that is, a statement containing a false narrative. This is more extreme when you consider that Person B would not attack Person A with a hammer had Person A not brought a hammer with them to attack Person B. BeŻet (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't know who started the fight. For all we know it was like this: A attacked B, B attempted to defend himself with a weapon, and A took B's weapon and threw it at B. In that case, it's not even a "false narrative" to say that A attacked B and threw the weapon at him. And it isn't lying or even misleading to leave out that the weapon started in B's hands. Also, there was never consensus to include the story at all, and it was edit warred into the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We do, we have video evidence and reliable sources describing the event. BeŻet (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no source shows who started the fight. We don't know what happened just before the video starts. We do have sources saying the people outside the bus charged and surrounded the bus prior to what we see in the video. But we don't know what, if anything, led to their decision to do that, and we don't know who committed the first physical attack. If you have a quote to the contrary, feel free to provide it. At any rate, the inclusion of this story was the outcome of an edit war and was against consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

-- Sorry, I have to unexpectedly step out and won't be back for a few hours — can another admin have a look at this, in the meantime? El_C 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This story about the hammer attack was added to the article by means of an edit war in the first place. Several editors felt the story was generally undue and disputed the wording that called Ngo's allegation false. It was discussed on the talk page, but a minority of editors repeatedly reintroduced the material, and insisted not only that it was due, but also insisted on the disputed wording calling Ngo's claim false. Here are some diffs where the material was repeatedly added and re-added, in my opinion against consensus:, , , , . Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

— per WP:ONUS, you need to get consensus for inclusion. Due to the BLP-sensitive nature of the addition, it would probably be best if this were to be undertaken via an RfC, so there is a proper, uninvolved closure to the dispute. Good luck. El_C 02:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you saying that the story about the hammer attack should be removed from the article pending talk page discussion? If so, who should remove it? I prefer not to remove it, as this has been an edit war, and I do not wish to participate in an edit war. But I will follow your advice. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this addition. El_C 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. I don't mean to challenge here, but only to clarify. The article currently includes language that seems to me similar to the language in the diff you linked, sourced with the same three sources (Daily Dot, Huff Post, and Oregonlive) about the hammer attack. It says: In August 2019, Ngo claimed that antifascists had attacked far-right protesters with a hammer. The hammer was initially used by a member of the American Guard, a group labeled a White Supremacist Organization by the ADL, which was subsequently taken by a counter protester and thrown back into the bus the American Guard members were riding. Do you think that language and those sources should be removed? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't immediately see any outstanding BLP issues with that passage. It does not advance the point that he wasn't present at the incident, nor does it say that he made several inacurrate [sic.] claims. Is the passage you quote even contested? If no one is contesting it, then it enjoys consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. El_C 03:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, I believe there are at least four editors who contested including the story at all. I'll post something there pinging those editors. For my part, I just didn't have time to keep fighting, and the edit warring required admin intervention, which I then did not have time to seek. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Odafa reported by User:Realmmb (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Kolkata Derby. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has been repetitively reverting my edits, for no apparent reason and has not responded to repetitive warnings to stop with his disruptive editing and his deliberate push to delete a particular piece of information. REAL MMB (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:Odafa has has never posted to a talk page in their entire Wikipedia career. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Arllaw reported by User:Skythrops (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&oldid=910171754

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910171754
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910167798
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910165385
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&diff=next&oldid=910164729

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArllaw&type=revision&diff=914612989&oldid=911132302

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parental_alienation#Potential_Wikipedia_3RR_Breach
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parental_alienation#Talk_Page_Clean-Up

Comments:

On August 10, User:Arllaw made an edit that immediately reverted at least three edits made immediately prior. By doing so as a single edit, this also had the appearance of attempting to ‘game the system’ by making 3+ reversions instantly as one edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parental_alienation&diff=910188754&oldid=910171754

This was not the first time that Arllaw had reverted some of this same text, nor the first time that this editor’s conduct gave the appearance of breaching the 3RR, in my opinion.

REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN GENUINE DISCUSSION

On this occasion, I reverted the text in question and started an immediate discussion under a new section “Potential Wikipedia 3RR Breach”. I provided details of why the existing text, prior to Arllaw's actions, was accurate and better and why the multiple, simultaneous reversions were not appropriate.

I do not believe that Arllaw engaged in meaningful discussion about the content. On the contrary, Arllaw proceeded to close down this debate – quite literally, by closing down the section entirely on the Talk page.

CLOSING DOWN OF DISCUSSION

Arllaw then closed down other sections on the Talk page that I, in particular, had initiated – notably the sections on the opening paragraph – before proceeding, over the past four weeks, with an exceptional number of edits that ignored long-standing discussion and evidence presented on the Talk page and adjusted these and other sections of the page in spite of prior, reasoned debate by myself and others on the Talk page.

OTHER CONDUCT

I also note that:

- notwithstanding Arllaw's recent provision of rationales for edits, Arllaw's past comments on the Talk page have frequently been personal, rather than content-focused – attacking more than one editor and accusing me or others of conduct such as ‘policing’ the page which, I believe, reflects Arllaw's conduct if anyone’s;

- Arllaw ‘followed’ me to this and other Wikipedia pages, following some comments I made on the Parental Alienation Syndrome page, and has consistently and repeatedly undone accurate edits I have made on these pages;

- Arllaw has made a number of comments on the Talk page, and edits of the article, that indicate significant misunderstanding of the topic, including, but not limited to a mistaken belief that the term Parental Alienation is not derived from the term Parental Alienation Syndrome, and a mistaken belief that ‘alienation’ refers to a broad range of instances where children reject a parent rather than the specific phenomenon of a child being psychologically manipulated into unwarranted rejection of a parent and others. Many of Arllaw's edits continue to reflect these and other significant misunderstandings, making consensus exceptionally hard to reach;

- Arllaw's edits also seem to have a primary aim of casting doubt on the phenomenon of Parental Alienation and on focusing on the controversy that surrounded the related term Parental Alienation Syndrome back in the 1980s and 90s, while suggesting that this (rather than focusing on the characteristics of the phenomenon we're describing) represents an NPOV;

It has become impossible to edit this article (which I've been involved with for several years, with a number of other editors agreeing positively with my contributions) in the face of someone whose comments indicate an inaccurate understanding, or even lack of acceptance of, this phenomenon; makes extreme numbers of edits on an almost daily basis; and won’t countenance the edits that I (and others) put forward often with detailed prior discussion on the Talk page. I have avoided making any edits for several weeks to avoid contributing to what appears to me to be ongoing, edit warring conduct. I hope this matter can be resolved. Thank you. Skythrops (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * None of that is accurate. Discussion was made of closing past discussions which overlapped ongoing discussion, to which only one editor commented and those comments were respected. The one editor who consistently sided with disappeared from the talk  page after revealing himself to be editing under multiple accounts. Skythrops made a number of inappropriate personal attacks on the talk page, as he continues to do here, and it was not unreasonable to suggest that he stop doing within the context of trying to get the discussion back on track. Other editors have participated in discussion, and the most recent NPOV discussions kicked off when another editor (who is a subject matter expert) raised the issue. I have not "followed" Skythrops anywhere. Considerable advance notice was given of recent changes, which are both appropriate under Wikipedia policy and were made following proposals to which no objections were made. Nobody owns articles here, no mater how many edits they have made in the past, and editors' strong personal feelings about a subject don't trump efforts to improve an article or achieve NPOV. Arllaw (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – The diffs provided above are from mid-August and they are not even edits by User:Arllaw, so no violation has been shown. The talk page reveals a lot of disagreement. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the talk page or follow one of the other methods of WP:Dispute resolution. User:Arllaw has been putting closure boxes on discussion threads and it is not obvious that these closures enjoy consensus. An RFC benefits from an external closer and this can avoid some issues, such as one editor declaring victory based only on an incomplete discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:You Persian reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914630870 by SharabSalam (talk) You are both one"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914628293 by Benyamin-ln (talk)"
 * 3)  "Dont repeat sources in the lead."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914628293 by Benyamin-ln (talk)"
 * 2)  "Dont repeat sources in the lead."
 * 1)  "Dont repeat sources in the lead."
 * 1)  "Dont repeat sources in the lead."


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


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


 * Comments:

30 edits 80% of them are edit warring and adding this in Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been likened to ISIS by many Iranians and foreign governments. Many countries believe that this government provides financial and weapon support to the terrorists. Also, It has good relations with China and Russia. No source and not a neutral point of view. SharabSalam (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See also their comment in the edit summary Special:Diff/914632458, it shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia and also accusing me of using two accounts while reverting them.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks in Special:diff/914633192. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please continue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Persian (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Another revert, Special:Diff/914636073.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  15:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bmarashian03 reported by User:AbhiMukh97 (Result: 48hr)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on X2 (film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on X-Men: The Last Stand. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * uninvolved comment it would seem the reported User:Bmarashian03 has reverted once and the reporter User:AbhiMukh97 has reverted twice. No 3RR-violation and the reporter at least as much at fault. Jeppiz (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * for disruptive edits / warring. <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kbb2 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result:Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914522400 by ZH8000 (talk) disruptive editing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914537793 by Kbb2 (talk) per WP:3RR, I've already started a discussion on the talk page"
 * 3)  "respellings should follow the pronunciation respelling key, if you want to challenge it make a thread on Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key]"
 * 4)  "see the first note @ Help:Pronunciation respelling key, this is fine"
 * 5)  "rv, this is correct"
 * 1)  "rv, this is correct"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* English pronunciation */"
 * 2)   "/* English pronunciation */"
 * 3)   "/* English pronunciation */"
 * 4)   "/* English pronunciation */"


 * Comments:

You do realize the first revert (at 12:13, 7 September) is a self-rv and one to the version before he arrived at the article, right? Not sure how that counts (WP:3RRNO). Nardog (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't broken the 3RR, I've only reverted you twice (self-reverts don't count here). The third revert happened after I advised you to take the issue to Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key. The fact that you said that you're not challenging the PRK and yet you've just reported me makes no sense to be honest. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page did obviously not result in a concensus, but you decided to revert it back, nevertheless. I am still expecting and missing a source for your claim (I wrote twice I do not challenge the PRK). Urging me to move to another talk page is just tactical skirmish. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll let admins deal with this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, it’s just where you are supposed to be discussing a change like that. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * & it seems calmer now - Have you both decided to stop edit warring and use talk pages to resolve? I hope so, otherwise the page will be fully protected and or block(s) issued. <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124;  talk  15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Hyperbolick (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:02, 5 September 2019 (precedes 3RR period, but first removal of content, for context)
 * 2) 16:02, 9 September 2019
 * 3) 16:30, 9 September 2019
 * 4) 16:45, 9 September 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred in the edit summaries. Comments: Reference to the Raja Rao Award has been in the article since its creation in 2009. Discussion should precede its removal.


 * Clueless behavior is not welcome in an ACDS governed area. He has been in the process of adding anything and everything to this article, to save it from deletion, despite being rejected by nearly everybody at the AfD. Some self-retrospection on why his multiple additions have been reverted by at-least two other editors and failed to persuade a lot more over the AfD, is called for. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no excuse. You recite policy left and right and knew you were in 3RR violation when you did it. Yet you chose to violate. Seems your summary here forgets that the content you complain of was already on the page for ten years before I ever touched it. As to AfD, participants there have specifically requested more sources which I am providing as requested, despite your sole effort to stymie discussion through indiscriminate deletion. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you amuse me. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Block should be a week. He knows better. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not a month? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would do you good. This must be stressful for you. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you are into stress-counselling as a part-time gig. In the meantime, how about learning to indent properly? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

. Enough. Anyway, you need four reverts to violate 3RR. Please continue to use the article talk page often (maybe even more often) — without, however, resorting to personal comments or the casting of aspersions, Hyperbolick. El_C 18:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Been provoked. Expertly, I might add. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AndrewKkh reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: 24 hours Unblocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 914719736 by Crossroads1 (talk) Providing a pertinent quote is not original research. Perhaps you could read the article you linked and find out. It’s also irresponsible to remove my edit, and leave in what was under it, “which in effect placed it in the unknown” which is original research, and based on the direct quote, essentially false."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 914661572 by Crossroads1 (talk) Is there an issue with direct Plato quotes on the topic of the article? “per Doug Weller” is not a justification, as he removed a different edit, for a valid reason (original research). Please read edits before you remove them."
 * 3)  "/* History */Added pertinent information"
 * 4)  "/* History */Added pertinent information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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


 * Comments:

An IP added the material originally, and this user's 4 reverts are above. It has been more than 24 hours technically, but I think their intentions are clear. They have been warned on their talk page by Doug Weller. The content concerns a quote from Plato, and originally the user included a comment implying Plato knew about America, so there is no reason to discuss something so ridiculous. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * . For now. Too many mandatory fields were left blank. I'll give you a chance to correct this. El_C 18:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's a good start, but please don't make me look up the Previous version reverted to. El_C 18:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So sorry! I must have missed it on Twinkle. What is being asked for is the original attempt to add the content correct? -Crossroads- (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 20:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought I looked at everything, but the last field actually remained blank — so that's on me. User unblocked with apologies. And why did you even file an AN3 report without attempting to engage the user on the article talk page, where their comment remains unanswered? Next report, please make sure all the mandatory fields are filled. El_C 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken people here twice before, and both times the "previous version reverted to" was left blank. Also, in the first one the attempt to resolve on talk field was left blank, and in the second, the warning attempt was left blank. None of this was a problem, and blocks were doled out both times. I didn't know these fields were strictly mandatory. I'll be more careful to fill them all out in the future. Sorry this was such a mess. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:BE8B:DF00:F9ED:7C43:79CF:5B3D reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* StarCraft II */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 3)  "/* Awards */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Important notice regarding your edits to Scarlett (video game player) */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Scarlett (video game player). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * The topic has been discussed at Talk:Scarlett_(video_game_player).


 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lmatt reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reword"
 * 2)  "restore some prior wording"
 * 3)  "reverted addition of Template:Antisemitism as the article does not currently explain how 8chan is linked to antisemitism, 8chan is apparently linked to the alt-right which is why it is listed in the Alt-right navbox"
 * 4)  "restore good-faith edit"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 8chan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Lmatt listed three reverts at Talk:8chan, but then blew past 3RR anyway. Lmatt is blanking further attempts at discussion from at least two editors. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears Lmatt self-reverted as I was filing this. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And then restored the edit anyway. Alright. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:Cobblet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After three reverts by Generic515 and myself, my attempt to start a discussion on the talk page was immediately met with personal attacks. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Going by Generic515's broken english. It's likely he's a minor, english isn't his first language or there's a competency problem. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Choy4311 reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Both users 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: [diff]

Comments:

This user is trying to remove the thing Davao is most known for from the lead. I warned him about long-term edit warring. zzz (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I demand an audience first, please. I was the one who initiated the section move days earlier. User:Signedzzz reverted it hours after I did it. Whatever Davao is most know for is secondary data only and should be only put in the sections. Only primary introductory data should be in the introduction. I would please want to speak to the administrator who specializes in articles about Philippine LGUs. Thank you very much.
 * Both . Any more of this will result in a block. Discuss it on the talk page, not via edit summaries. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Muirchertach1 reported by User:Jebcubed (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removal was initially explained here, now it has been on talk, you have reverted edit twice"
 * 2)  "removal was explained. holograms are not posited by the vast majority of public no-plane theorists"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit war between this user and User:Acroterion, User did not take discuss on Talk Page after being told to by Acroterion. Jeb3 Talk at me here  12:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:73.67.33.9 reported by User:AbhiMukh97 (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

IP blocked. In the future, simple vandalism like this can be reported to WP:AIV for quicker results. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Glman83 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It even says it on the page? created in 2001 from the formerly separate towns of Brighton and Hove."
 * 2)  "Brighton isn’t a town it’s a constituent part of a city."
 * 3)  "Please read my email back from Brighton MP office."
 * 1)  "Please read my email back from Brighton MP office."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Brighton (disambiguation). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

No consensus has been found for this change at Talk:Brighton. The editor was warned for eddit warring on August 31 and in discussions since, but refuses to accept advice. Charles (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Muirchertach1 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, Muirchertach1's warning to me after two reverts, and after the previous report to AN3 was left on his talkpage.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Initiated by Muirchertach1 after three reverts, my response after he was reverted three times by two other editors. Attempting to pick and choose winners from the "no planes" idea of 9/11 is nonsensical.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Хаджимурад reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/912019949

Diffs of the user's reverts: User started deleting consensus information in March Deleting that information was against wikipedia policy as an Administrator pointed out when someone else tried to remove the same information a year ago — link to admin's decision Anyway, in April I tried to draw user:Хаджимурад's attention to talk page to that decision.
 * 1) Special:Diff/888065632

But recently edit warrior returned with the same edit
 * 1) Special:Diff/914512519

I called him again to talk page with a revert: And invited him again
 * 1) Special:Diff/914805390
 * 1) Special:Diff/915096976

He reacts with Edit warring with no any explanation
 * 1) Special:Diff/915035575

I drew attention of an admin here and got an answer (quote): "Arsenekoumyk Arsen -- this dude is likely an Avar nationalist editor (user name references Hadzhi Murat) and is not being constructive from the start. A block is likely in order. You're already on 3rr and Im too busy to add my few cents there but feel free to copy paste.--Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)"

Please take some measures
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Klačko reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This was pre-dispute version since user Resnjari made edit which triggered edit war, I completely agree with @Ktrimi991 that this shoud be resolved at the talk page - that was my proposal after all!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 915343114 by Resnjari (talk) again, minority languages are thoroughly mentioned in the Languages section! What is the problem to bring up the question in the talk page and try to reach consensus instead of engaging in edit war? What are you doing can be considered as vandalism, please stop! Otherwise you will be reported!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915339711 by Resnjari (talk) 2. min./reg. lang. are thoroughly mentioned in Languages section, no need to double it with the section in the infobox; those countries articles you mentioned can still be considered exceptions, eg. Cro,BiH,Bul,Hun,Slo dont have it - what I'm saying is that it is NOT common rule which must be followed in the infobox! If you insist, try to reach consensus on talk page before making any edits"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 915287225 by Resnjari (talk) discussed it before; 1. it is not a common practice to put minority&regional languages section in infobox, quite contrary: check the articles of Serbias neighbouring countries"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Typo */Add."


 * Comments:

I have asked editors involved in the content dispute to discuss on the talk page. 4 reverts made by Klačko within a very short period of time. The matter is trivial though I have suggested editors involved in the dispute open a RfC. I am filing this report but hopefully Klečko will reflect and opt for seeking solution on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Made another revert . Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Klačko reverted themselves. I think now things between those two editors can be solved on the talk page of the article (I pinged there both of them) and a block is not needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, before this gets closed i came across this comment not long after the talkpage discussion on the article started. , I can read Serbian. I hope your not trying to get into situations with this comment on their talkpage. You wrote  Полако. Зар им не видиш стратегију? Играју у тиму та двојица и раде координисано (навлаче да прекршиш правило 3 враћања). Вики ћелија, такорећи... Поздрав, свако добро." Translated it reads Slowly. Don't you see a strategy for them? They play in a team these two and work in coordination (inciting you to break 3 rule reverts). Wiki cells, so to speak ... Bye, all the best. Its disappointing that you use that kind of language casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. I hope you refrain from it in future and focus on the matter at hand in the article talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Closing with no action per this self-revert by User:Klačko. Disputes over the priority to be given to different languages are common in the domain of WP:ARBEE. When this happens, people seem to be fighting over a small advantage to be given to the country or language that they personally favor. If you are in a disagreement like that, try to figure out what the usual practice is in similar cases. User:Ktrimi991 has proposed an RfC and that is certainly something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Hamedhbb reported by User:Wikaviani (Result:Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reported user is engaged in edit-warring against several editors, including me, to push his POV, he's been warned by several editors too, but he has removed some of the warnings from his talk. He's trying to add controversial content to the article by the means of edit-warring and unreliable source (Youtube link). Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

'''This report is unjustified. I quote a discussion in talk section below that is clearly stating the reason he thinks my source is unreliable is User:Wikaviani POV. I generally will doubt wikipedia values if some editors with a similar POV will try to misuse it for their political attitudes. Hamedhbb (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)'''


 * 5 reverts of several other editors within less than two hours makes this report quite relevant in my humble opinion ... Regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

''Hi @Hamedhbb:; Would you please stop this edit war? First let's discuss here? We can reach a consensus.(@Aryzad:; @Wikaviani:; @HistoryofIran:)In2wiki (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Agreed. i asked for page protection. A Youtube link to support a POV, even from Sahar's father, is an unreliable source, especially when we know the nature of the Islamic regime of the Mullahs who does not hesitate to put pressure on people to obtain some "confession" ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC) @Aryzad:; @Wikaviani:; @HistoryofIran:) Thanks for trying to be fair. Your comment contradicts with the title though. Your comment is biased because of your political attitude. This is your judgment that is not necessarily correct regardless of my agreement. Let us take Persian civilisation to the next level by stop thinking on behalf of public and stop thinking we know more than them. That’s exactly what current regime is doing. Being clear is the best way forward. If you think it was a forced confession please at that to the content. Deal? Let people decide. Hamedhbb (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC) There can be a mention to the interview with the state-owned TV, but calling that "Sahar's father reaction" is not how it works. Aryzad (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC) IRI sources are unreliable, this interview should not be included without extra care of due WP:WEIGHT.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC) '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedhbb (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)