Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive396

User:Bacondrum reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 915383086 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) Remove personal attack"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 915381880 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) Please do, accusing others of bias is a personal attack and therefor a violation of policy."
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Flyer22 Reborn (talk) to last revision by Bacondrum (TW)"
 * 4)  "/* RFC - Improving the lede */ Remove personal attack as per WP:PERSONAL please focus on the edits, not me."


 * Comments:

3RR vio. Claim of a WP:NPA violation is without merit. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly a personal attack - he is accusing me of being biased - I am not and I take offense, it is a violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL This editor even states on his talk page that he is planning on coming after me: "will serve as evidence in the future." Why would he be collecting evidence against me? I think this is outrageous conduct from Flyer22. Bacondrum (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Troy102 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"

(Previous discussions)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)
 * Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)
 * Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 1


 * Comments:

Continued addition of user-ratings despite hidden note warning against such additions, and being reverted and warned by three separate editors. Editor has no intention to discuss after performing the exact same edits every time. Has clearly violated 3RR. -- / Alex /21  02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:101.179.104.172 reported by User:Lupin VII (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 915414254 by Jevansen (talk) Please read the discussion where it says SHOULD and not MUST. My edits are not unconstructive. This discussion is intractable. Take me to ANI. This is not the forum for thi."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 915400026 by HiLo48 (talk) consistent BRD misuse over numerous YEARS to push an AGENDA. Take it to ANI..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915325624 by ToBeFree (talk) Wikipedia:BRD_misuse"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 915325182 by Theinstantmatrix (talk)"


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


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


 * None, no evidence of this... discussion is happening on my TALK page not on the actual page... complete misuse of BRD principles and WP:NOT. People acting like horses arses instead to push an agenda. If you want an agenda go stand on your own soap box, or start a forum. --101.179.104.172 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "BRD abuse", and claiming editors are on soapboxes. It's getting old. Lupin VII (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * – bradv  🍁  04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the quick action taken here, but would just like to add something to the discussion. On the user's Talk page I politely drew their attention to the relevant part of our MOS, Naming conventions (Football in Australia), and received the following reply - "Are you drunk or jut stupid? Please read my comments on the actual page sometimes it takes a person bold enough to break conventions to deal with thi stupidity. As I said above this is not the page for this discussion. Take me to ANI. I dare you." Apart from wondering if a 24 hour block will solve the problem, I don't think I need to make further comment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that was one of several examples of incivility by this IP. I trust that if this editor returns after the 24 hours are up this will not continue. If it does, feel free to ping me or report it to AIV. No one should have to be subjected to that. – bradv  🍁  04:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:139.5.158.152 reported by User:Emadix (Result:Blocked one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Please do NOT remove references without a valid reason. Please do not abuse user privileges."
 * 2)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Do NOT remove references without a valid reason."
 * 3)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Do NOT remove references without a valid reason."
 * 4)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Please keep your personal opinion for yourself. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree!"
 * 5)  "Undid repeated vandalism."
 * 6)  "Undid repeated vandalism."
 * 7)  "Undid repeated vandalism. Violence of the rioters is well documented. They have attacked government buildings and the police, beat up passers-by, shut down the airport, etc. Please do not post personal views without references."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 915447423 by OceanHok (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid vandalism by 157.193.240.143 (talk) Added references. Please refrain from further vandalism."
 * 10)  "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
 * 11)  "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
 * 12)  "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
 * 13)  "Undid vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
 * 14)  "Undid vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 Hong Kong protests."


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

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  10:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Air7777 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 915313416 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Stop re adding routes that don't even operate and removing sourced content"
 * 2)  "/* Airlines and destinations */ Readded routes that were removed by editor who refuses to reply when questioned about their inconsistent removal of future routes"
 * 3)  "/* Airlines and destinations */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 915177308 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 914690460 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Still referenced"


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


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


 * Comments:

This has previously been discussed at the article talkpage. Charles (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A previous discussion where there was no decision to remove future routes and a discussion you weren't even involved in. Air7777 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  16:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:43.239.115.251 reported by User:QueerEcofeminist (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */Removed the disclosed payment warning as Girish Sharma is a YouTuber with more than thousand videos published. Girish Sharma has done more than 3 thousand events. He is an anchor with zoom tv. So fans definitely wanted to know about his personal life and early life. So I strongly believe the personal life information at Wikipedia will help the people to know more about him. As people always wanted to see the date of birth, initial career, struggle of Television celebrit..."
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */Person is Indian Television Anchor"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */ added college and study information"
 * 4)  "/* Career */ added about his Anchoring videos on YouTube"
 * 5)  "/* Personal life */Added the right picture in right Article. As people were getting confused between Girish sharma a footballer and Girish Sharma Anchor. So to clear who is the Right person"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */There are enough Articles by leading Indian newspapers such as Times of India, Deccan cronicle, Free Press Journal, Scroll, Mid-Day Featuring information about Girish Sharma. So it can not be a paid page."
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */There are enough Articles by leading Indian newspapers such as Times of India, Deccan cronicle, Free Press Journal, Scroll, Mid-Day Featuring information about Girish Sharma. So it can not be a paid page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

repeated removal of maintenance tags  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing. – bradv  🍁  16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Nicoljaus always returns his version, does not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko, , but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club. I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  16:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nickjnowak reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "El cid, el campeador: I just sent it to you.  Please read and do not undo my edits."
 * 2)  "I have attempted to explain the issue here previously and I have communicated with those editors who have undid my updates.  There is NO association between Lamborghini and so-called "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica."  The individual who purportedly owns "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica" is a serial trademark infringer and con-artist.  To the extent you continue to revert my changes, you are simply perpetuating something that is not true.  I'm unsure what I need to do to get other editors accept this fact."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915460926 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 915459232 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 915332873 by A202985 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica is not licensed by Lamborghini SpA.  In fact, Lamborghini SpA has brought a lawsuit against Lamborghini LatinoAmerica in United States District Court for the District of Virginia alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting."
 * 1)  "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica is not licensed by Lamborghini SpA.  In fact, Lamborghini SpA has brought a lawsuit against Lamborghini LatinoAmerica in United States District Court for the District of Virginia alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Lamborghini. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Talkback (User talk:FlightTime) (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "Please stop emailing me"
 * 4)   "Final warning notice on Lamborghini. (Using Twinkle"
 * 5)   "/* New message from FlightTime */ STOP IT"
 * 6)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users. (Using Twinkle"


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

I have repeatedly reached out to editors who have questioned my edits. In fact, I personally responded to flighttime after he (or she) emailed me directly. I have provided editors what I believe to be sufficient source material for my deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamborghini_Brief_In_Support_of_Personal_Jurisdiction_Over_Defendant_Garcia.pdf
 * Comments:

Why other editors who have no knowledge of the issue continue to revert my edits seems suspect to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjnowak (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Favonian (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:173.166.36.18 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Critical Race Theory has absolutely no place in this article. PPOV is not appropriate."
 * 2)  "As per previous editor: Critical Race Theory has no place in this article other than placing subjective perspective and causing controversy. Critical race THEORY should be covered on the Critical race theory wiki.That is a CLEAR edit summary. Please do not revert without explanation."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915499859 by Dharmalion76 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Agree with previous removal."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 915416409 by Hmains (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User went to talk page here  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please also note these two edits which came from an IPv6 geolocating to the same area as the reported IPv4  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Remembernowandnow833 reported by User:Iseptuelenta (Result:Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [915305182] Removal of biographical data
 * 2) [914682575] Removal of biographical data, with fake explanation
 * 3) [910287370] Falsification of birth date, removal of birth name, removal of biographical data
 * 4) [909685550] Falsification of birth date

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See warning on user talk page

Comments:

Iseptuelenta (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are also edit warring; you are restoring disputed unsourced content to a WP:BLP. I've removed the BLP violations, as well as the unsourced promotional material added by . If either of you edit the article to add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced content, it will likely lead to a block of your account. And no, IMDb is not a reliable source.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added relevant info about Bella Dayne, including references, to her Talk page. Iseptuelenta (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left some policy pointers on that page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are now edit warring with me, the administrator reviewing your report, to restore the disputed content that was remove per WP:BLP. I left clear instructions on the article talk page as to how to proceed; please don't continue reverting.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:1kmtkmt reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 48 hours; sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 915502463 by Khruner (talk)"
 * 2)  "removed arabocentric claim"
 * 3)  "removed arabocentric claim"
 * 4)  "removed arabocentric claim"


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


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


 * Comments:

Not technically 3rr but all of their edits have been the same changes. Also edited as. may have more to say. No response to warnings on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 48 hours for garden-variety edit warring. They need to form an argument on the talk page as opposed to popping in every day to blank the content.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, this is a sock and 48h just won't cut it. Happy Friday! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our Good Cop, Bad Cop routine is en pointe.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The page is subject to a 1RR limitation, as one that is clearLy part of the Israeli Arab conflict: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction : "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . The restriction linked above goes on to say This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the ARBPIA 1RR editnotice edit notice. This page does not have that edit notice affixed. – bradv  🍁  20:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. the page IS tagged with that template. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I just applied the edit notice and talk page notice. – bradv  🍁  21:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you just tagged the talk page, but the article page itself carries a notice of the restriction, which is displayed when you try to edit that page. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I applied that edit notice 20 minutes ago. It did not exist at the time of the linked diffs above, and it did not exist at the time of this report. – bradv  🍁  21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

PayMe31 reported by theinstantmatrix (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Took out biased, unneeded information that does not tell the whole story.
 * 2)  - Deleted stan culture rhetoric. Biased useless, opinionated garbage.
 * 3)  - Removed biased opinionated stan culture rhetoric.
 * 4)  - Removed biased stan culture rhetoric.
 * 5)  - Removed stan culture rhetoric.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Warned by ToBeFree

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor in question has not responded to any complaints nor they started a discussion on the talk page other than edit summaries. Evidently a SPA.

Comments:

Above. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Hopefully they find something more constructive to do when this expires. – bradv  🍁  23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ekspertiza reported by User:HawkAussie (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Germany national football team statistics Germany national football team results
 * 1)  - The inital edit that kicked started this edit war.
 * 2)  - please write talk page and discuss
 * 3)  - unnessesary reducings..
 * 4)  - discuss at talk page first....it could be your opinions....please stop it....
 * 1) - The inital edit for this one too.
 * 2) - merging doen not need, because all of merged parts are not as same form
 * 3) - you can add other page links to this page but dont seperate table...
 * 4) - i showed reason of seperated form's disadvantage....

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - For the Germany national football team results page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It was mainly discussed on the WP:Football page which is linked here

'''Comments: Ekspertiza has reverted around ten edits from fellow Wikipedians as I feel like he wants to be a person to own these two articles that he created despite the consensus of the WP:FOOTY group. HawkAussie (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)'''
 * I've indefinitely blocked Ekspertiza as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:2741:7C20:D16E:C92B:AF1F:FDAE reported by User:BigDwiki (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 915549718 by BigDwiki (talk) Wikipedia is not a forum for listing arrests on academic campuses. This is not a list of all students that have been arrested on campus, nor should it be."
 * 2)  "Removed due to the fact that this is not a forum for listing random arrests of 2 students on an academic campus."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915549025 by BigDwiki (talk) Wikipedia is not a forum for listing arrests on academic campuses."
 * 4)  "Removed uncited information that was based on an opinion-editorial article."
 * 1)  "Removed uncited information that was based on an opinion-editorial article."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on University of South Alabama."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on University of South Alabama."


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

It looks like the IP has been at it for a while when it comes to their disruptive editing. Lupin VII (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * WP:BOOMERANG; I don't think the IP is being disruptive in this case. User:BigDwiki is editing against two editors (myself and the IP). The sections BigDwiki insists on reinstating violate several policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH (e.g.; "  "The university was widely criticized for the arrests and subsequent publicity" - No sources to support "widely criticized," just one opinion column.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * . User:BigDwiki is further cautioned not to exceed 3RR. – bradv  🍁  23:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dharmabumstead reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Sep 11 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 2) Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 3) Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 4) Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 5) Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 6) Sep 13 Added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
 * 7) Sep 13 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
 * 8) Sep 13 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
 * 9) Sep 14 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
 * 10) Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 11) Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 12) Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
 * 13) Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First the IP 66.235.26.174 and then the Dharmabumstead user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The problem started with Special:Contributions/66.235.26.174 edit warring against myself and to remove a very relevant and prominent study from the lead section. IP 66.235.26.174 soon found his old username Dharmabumstead and resumed edit warring under that account. A talk page discussion raised worthy points but the consensus remained in place. Dharmabumstead kept edit warring, racking up five reverts in one day despite many warnings. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet racked up nearly as many reverts in the same period of time. His reason for specifically including a reference to that study in the lead of the article seems to be based entirely on his own opinion. After I supplied sources indicating that the study in question was indeed flawed and non-conclusive in the talk page, per his demands, he went ahead and reverted my changes (without comment, initially) without any further discussion or consensus as soon as the page became unlocked. I've asked for dispute resolution on this.Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  02:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Dharmabumstead (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13 September Rv per WP:NPOV
 * 2) 13 September (no comment added)
 * 3) 13 September (no comment added)
 * 4) 13 September (no comment added)
 * 5) 14 September (no comment added)
 * 6) 14 September (no comment added)
 * 7) 14 September Rv... no consensus for this POV change

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The lead of the Super Audio CD page has a reference to a study (discussed at length elsewhere in the article) that I believe should not be in the lead, for reasons discussed extensively in both my edit comments and in the talk page. I tried simply removing the reference from the lead, but one editor in particular seems quite intent on leaving the reference in because he insists it's "CRITICALLY IMPORTANT" to the history of SACD and is engaging in edit warring to get his way. There's a healthy discussion going on on the talk page, but he's not added anything to it and simply reverted my changes again today without comment as soon as the page was unlocked. I've requested WP:DRN on this.

Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  02:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank Bright reported by User:Bill497 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This will be a special case, I actually want to report two users if I can, who I strongly believe are the same person. The reason for the report of the accounts is, edit warring, removing sourced material and adding POV. To the article Gulen Movement. I initially reported them as an sock poppet, but since the one of the accounts started to edit war I felt the urge to contact the administrators on this board. Thanks.

The two users are: User:Frank Bright and User:Gardendr who had been inactive since 2017, and started making the same changes on the same article on the same day... Bill497 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Please work out your differences on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Richhoncho reported by User:Koavf (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&oldid=915725601 (a version of this talk page with a redirect manually listed as N/A-class, other edits change it to a redirect)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpin_the_Bottle_%28Juliana_Hatfield_song%29&type=revision&diff=915674515&oldid=378109947
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpin_the_Bottle_%28Juliana_Hatfield_song%29&type=revision&diff=915681964&oldid=915681398
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&diff=next&oldid=915684379
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&diff=next&oldid=915723535

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichhoncho&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=915727566&oldid=913527954

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf&oldid=915725832#Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)

Comments:

Looks like the user asked me to post here in his last revert. As per WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." and he undid my work four times and then explicitly called out WP:3RR in the fourth edit. Kind of a head-scratcher as he's also posting to my talk at the same time about this but it's clearly him undoing edits I made on this page four times in 24 hours and then evidently asking me to post here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, –  bradv  🍁  02:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Many talk pages are not redirected. See Category:Redirect-Class articles and the tens of thousands of articles there. Seems like it's four instances of undoing my work in 24 hours--what am I missing? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As, says this argument is just dumb. Koafv showed that he was not interested in anything but making a point, rather than serving any useful purpose at WP with this edit. He wanted to add a redundant tag, but didn't 'approve' of my assessment of that tag.
 * For the record, I am editing these redirects in the same way for a number of years and and have only had one person who so adamently beleives I am wrong, Koafv. Go figure! Maybe I should have raised the complaint. It was certainly my right to do so. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Sps999 reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurjar&oldid=914855624 [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Multiple attempts to explain to user what is acceptable and why they are being reverted

Comments:


 * User also keeps deleting templates and userbox as well as the cited information - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  18:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bankster reported by User:Luizdl (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

The user is moving the page without get consensus and he is edit warring to keep his version. The name Uruguayan Portuguese is the name used by authors in the cited sources, while Portuñol is the name used by some locals. Also, 'Riverense' is not the only variation of the dialect.--Luizdl Talk 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The user does not take into account that the term Riverense Portuñol is also used by the same sources. He does not take into account either that the article was moved by the same user in 2015 with no consensus at all; I was simply getting the old name back, but he started edit warring and trying to impose his will like he did four years ago. --Bankster (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , and move warring reverted. Please start a requested move discussion to gain consensus for this move. – bradv  🍁  18:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:IvatanWiki reported by User:Stricnina (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The page has undergone several "undid revisions" in a period of 24 hours as performed by the recently registered user IvatanWiki in several sections of the same article, but with special attention to the part relevant to the interpretation of the Carolyn Brewer source. I have stopped engaging with the edits after many of my modifications were undone by IvatanWiki. I'd like to know what measures can be done to prevent the edit warring. I am also attempting to reason with the newly-registered contributor in his talk page but his reply is more or less the same as in the summary of his edits. Stricnina (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Response:

The revision history for Philippine mythology will show that the revisions I made were appropriate and without personal connotations. Stricnina's actions of reverting properly sourced materials is against Wikipedia's policy. Despite this, Stricnina reported my account for the properly sourced edits I made, which Stricnina tried to replace with statements that are not accurate and have personal connotations instead of facts sourced from respected sources. Additionally, there is no need for an 'interpretation' on the Carolyn Brewer source, as the statements used from the source and inputted in the article were exactly what the source stated. No personal connotations, no personal interpretation. Plain language from the source itself. Also, this "response" section, for some reason, is being deleted in this page. IvatanWiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @IvatanWiki: Which of the specific exemptions to WP:3RR do you think applies to your edits? It appears that you and Stricnina have a content disupte, not that either of you is editing in bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Wikiman2718 (Result: No violation; stale)
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: Talk:Cupping therapy/Archive 1 and User talk:Wikiman2718 and User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 7 and the comment left here

Comments:

After posting to the No original research/Noticeboard, the admin left this diff on the talk page. This editor has also recently admitted to edit warring on Cast-iron cookware in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No sources exist to support the inclusion of any fraud category. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Also stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_series_database&oldid=912100833

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . Also stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:BrugesFR (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City&oldid=915953192

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

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

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

Comments:

The user insist in coloring dark gray a multiple image box, this does not match other images and distorts the article.--BrugesFR (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please ignore this "report"; Spanish user is just preserving purely of his edits. Is a joke. Thanks. --Generic515 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , Generic515 for 72 hours and BrugesFR for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Aggelos1234 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */Because PLEASE ALLS ARABS IN THE WORLD IS 355.200.000 IN BASE THE ETHNOLOGIE AND BRITANNICA OK OK OK IF NOT CAN DON'T THE PULLED ."
 * 2)  "In the end"
 * 3)  "/* Etymology */Because the ethnic ARABS in the world is 355.200.000"
 * 4)  "/* Etymology */OK . The number the ethnic Arab is 355.200.000 Sarah Canbel (WP:  BLOCK)"
 * 5)  "/* Etymology */Because the ethnic Arabs in the world is 355.200.000 ."
 * 6)  "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population Egyptians who Egyptian is an individual ethnic group OK !!! Sarah Canbel (WP: BLOCK)"
 * 7)  "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population the Egyptians who is Egyptian is an individual ethnic group ."
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population Egyptians who Egyptian is an individual ethnic group OK !!! Sarah Canbel (WP: BLOCK)"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology */Because the number 450.000.000 inclusive the population the Egyptians who is Egyptian is an individual ethnic group ."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Arabs. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Arabs. (TW)"


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

The user has, six or seven times, changed the number of Arabs listed in the article despite having been asked numerous times to discuss the matter on the talk page first, and despite a full slate of warnings on their user talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Koncorde reported by User:Maxim.il89 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - Talk Page 1 Talk Page 2 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I apologise for reverting many times as well, I didn't know about the 3RR - in the beginning, I wanted to add notable supporters, but the discussion at WikiProject Football said you can only add those names if they somehow played a role for the club. Fair enough, I've added the names of those involved with the charity operated by Sunderland. Now, Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)|undefined
 * You were advised by me using the standard 3RR template last night. For the record, so was Koncorde, but from what I can see you are the protagonist. You need to stick by the rules. So until a talk page agreement is reached please stop adding the same disputed content. FWIW, Wikiprojects are not the arbiter of acceptable article content. No matter how much they attempt to enforce their narrowly established policy objectives, it cannot trump the established content policies. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have explained multiple times why the content is not appropriate, and have assisted the user in correctly formatting the information into new sections and correcting grammatical errors and / or improving its encyclopedic quality both on Sunderland AFC and associated articles to try and demonstrate what should or could be included. The user is only concerned with circumventing the outcome of an RfC that was started explicitly because he was adding such sections.
 * Per the RfC that was held over on the Football talk page it was made abundantly clear that the inclusion of named individuals on an article should only be done when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list. Maxim has ignored this consensus and continues to push pointy edits. Per Leaky Cauldron, the RfC is not the 'arbiter' but it is there to establish a consensus on what is appropriate, necessary. Our decision making is founded in the principles of WP:TRIVIA and other established basics of Wikipedia editing and always has been. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comment, I didn't add the 3RR. Leaky did, although I was about to also. My edits were collaborative in making adjustments to the changed content on occasions. It is not about "frightening" anyone, if I was going to do that I would have come here first or gone to the Admin Noticeboard for sockpuppet investigation. Koncorde (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the edits in question, I believe it will be clear to any reviewing that I have left clear edit summaries, and that the edits were to distinct areas about distinct information until the last revert, and that also the attempts to resolve the "dispute" existed only subsequent to Leaky applying the warning. Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Maxim.il89 is warned they may blocked if they revert again unless they first get consensus on a talk page. The RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football shows that 16 of those voting are in favor of "Only significant supporters in prose". This is against including the kind of fan information that Maimil89 has been reverting to include. The text that the 16 people favor is EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of "result" is that? You are correct in saying that those in the consensus said that "Only significant supporters in prose" should be added, and that's what I'm doing now. I'm not adding Stewart from Eurythmics, even though his a fan, but only those who helped establish the Sunderland AFC charity. That's pretty significant!
 * It's not just a list of names. I mean, the guy didn't even bother entering the talk page, whereas I did.
 * I was told Wikipedia discriminates against new users, but this is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If your changes have consensus, it should be easy to find at least one person who will express agreement with you at Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.. It's good that you are participating there, but nobody supports you yet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User wasn't adding those who helped establish, but those who did a charity event in 2010 and happened to be celebrities. The charity event is to do with the Foundation, not the club, even if some of those associated with the foundation also happen to be fans of the club and or vice versa. I have supported the addition against the charity page, and the stadium information against the stadium, but not extraneous trivia against the main Sunderland AFC article when it is there for the express purpose of slipping in celebrities of no great significance to the fortune if the team (and that policy should apply to all team pages, both future and retroactively). Koncorde (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Tesint reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Has been asked to discuss on the article's Talk page, but has not done so; nor have explanations been given for reverts. Has now reverted 4 times in last 2 hours. Contributor321 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry. I did not see the "take it to talk" notice in "history" just the edits taking away my edit. It has been a while for me since I last edited on Wikipedia and I am rusty. I will abide by the rule, of which I was previously unaware. Please provide authority for banning references to Youtube. I believe that in this instance, the Youtube video is reliable because it shows a presentation by the President of Evergreen with a graphic showing a big enrollment decline. --Tesint (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could have missed the edit summaries, the warning on your talk page, and the notice that this ANI discussion was ongoing, but okay. If you understand the problem now, you should self-revert, open a talk page discussion, and refrain from edit warring more. Nblund talk 21:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Tesint is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. Their recent comments suggest they really don't understand Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, but if they are prepared to wait for agreement, we can deal with it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916092033 by Reywas92 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 916080262 by Reywas92 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 915257201 by Reywas92 (talk) a consensus has not been reached"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* September 2019 */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Appointed by */ +"


 * Comments:

Multiple reverts on this page and others with a refusal to engage on talk page even following warning with link to such discussion initiated last week that was mentioned in my edit summaries. Reywas92Talk 00:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:56 17 September 2019 "(An image of a ruin also represents Athens grow up)"
 * 2)  "Could you please act like a responsible human being . The image is just fine"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 916084820 by TU-nor (talk) Please do not change the images without a reason"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 916049694 by TU-nor (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916049694 by TU-nor (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring images both at and the reported article. Will not stop. PAs on edit-summaries. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr.  K.  02:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  03:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Weelandlka reported by User:Citing (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 (in edit summary), 2, 3

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

Comments:

Weelandlka has only been willing to accept trivial fixes or basic rewordings of what they have already written. I was also reverted by an IP at one point.-Citing (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Response:

Not against accepting what have been written. I just asked questions in order to make improvements. I am just trying to verfiy Citing's statement. I have also raised concerns about presentation, Citing has not responded to.-Weelandlka (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weelandlka (talk • contribs)
 * . Both editors have exceeded WP:3RR, but they are now discussing their differences on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Rajja100 reported by User:NahalAhmed (Result: EC salted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

this article previously two time deleted but continues making also my speedy deletion tag remove -- Nahal (T) 07:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:103.231.217.50 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: sprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please don't make changes to the article until a consensus is reached in WP:DRN"
 * 2)  "Not fine refer to the talk page"
 * 3)  "The consensus is needed on whether to add the negative criticism on a first-line or on a subheading. The Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body, unlike the Indian Medical Association which is a voluntary organisation. Unless an Indian Judicial court or Government of India make a statement that Siddha medicine as quackery. It's just an opinion of an opposing organisation and opinions should not be on the first line whether it's source content or not."
 * 4)  "The first paragraph is for the introduction of the topic not for negative criticism. It needs editorial consensus."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body */ Reply"


 * Comments:

. El_C 16:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:49.148.53.254 reported by User:Tamravidhir (Result: sprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Raiden (series). (TW)"


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

Edits were reverted by other users and myself as well. Haven't found any reliable sources online and neither had the IP user provided with any. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

. User was not warned about EW/3RR and thus may not be familiar with the concept. El_C 16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BrugesFR reported by User:Voche537 (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Help! Voche537 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)




 * —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Akisuto Zeniko reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has made no attempt at any kind of communication.

Comments:

The diffs presented here are for just one article but the User:Akisuto Zeniko has been adding and re-adding the links to youtube on about a dozen aviation related articles. It has been reverted by multiple editors and has made absolutely no attempt to any communication. They just re-add the same links over and over again. Prior to using that user name the same edits have been made by multiple dynamic IP addresses. Fort example this one and this one. --McSly (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked them for disruptive editing. I reverted many ELs from an IP and this user that are just promotional videos for airplanes - i.e., spam. I've not blocked for edit warring per se, since I've reverted, but rather for disruptive spamming after warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reaction --McSly (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916284199 by Crossroads1 (talk) Why should I have to settle on talk first when the previous version uses a weasel word that's against Wikipedia policy?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 916282476 by Crossroads1 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Modern view */ edited to more accurately and clearly reflect the information in the citations."
 * 4)  "/* Modern view */ it is legal and psychology experts whose opinions are relevant here. Use of the word "considered" without indicating who is doing the considering is a weasel word and against wikipedia policy."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ reply"


 * Comments:

Almost certainly the same person as this previous AN3 case where they were blocked for 36 hours. They are on the same article, making the same argument about alleged weasel words, and both IPs geolocate to the same city. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  03:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Hasteur reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: Wrong venue)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Microfunction&oldid=915970733

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

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

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

Comments:


 * I don’t know if this is the best place to report but the user is attempting to override the outcome of the MfD, which resulted in the warring that needs an intervention. An involvement of a 3rd party is desirable because of the history between this user and me; e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) —- Taku (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not the right venue to bring this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was afraid I might be told so; but please see my latest revert . At least the situation is developing to the edit warring. — Taku (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have completed the merger (which should eliminate the source of the dispute). —- Taku (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlexanderIvanenko reported by User:Pudeo (Result:Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert 20:10, 17 September 2019‎
 * 2) revert 20:35, 17 September 2019‎
 * 3) revert 21:40, 17 September 2019‎
 * 4) removal of material 22:14, 17 September 2019‎
 * 5) removal of material 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
 * 6) talk page revert of my comment without any basis 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
 * 7) talk page revert 22:51, 17 September 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Brand new account registered to do POV edit-warring. This in fact is likely a new throwaway sock of YMB29. Previous throwaway socks that edit-warred this article include, and.

The user was "clever" enough to not do a plain revert for the 4th time, but instead removed other stale parts of the article. Then he reverted my talkpage comment calling out these socks. Filing a SPI on these throwaway socks is useless, so perhaps extended confirmed protection is required in this article. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, you yourself reverted me 4 times, bro. You're making these accusations against me but failed to report your conduct that's substantially identical.
 * 1) Revision as of 18:21, 17 September 2019
 * 2) Revision as of 19:29, 17 September 2019
 * 3) Revision as of 19:55, 17 September 2019
 * 4) Revision as of 20:40, 17 September 2019
 * The article [Soviet Partisans] has had numerous deletions without any discussion. The Eastern European Mailing List has reared its head again, and Pudeo seems to support it. One of the edit summaries is blatantly partisan and removes a lot sourced content: ugh, seems like some Soviet-crimes apologist was active here, restore some content removed without proper discussion on talkAlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of those is a talk page revert. That edit summary is not by me either. --Pudeo (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits are indicative of a "rUsSiA iS baD" perspective, and this edit from you depends quite heavily on revisionist, nationalist sources from Finland in a language that no one outside of a single country of 5 million people speaks. And it seems that you are supporting edits with those ugly summaries above.
 * You added this into the article: Approximately 200 operations were made on civilians, killing over 200 and injuring 50, including children. The partisans often executed civilians throughout, not wanting anyone to witness the atrocities.AlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The content that User:AlexanderIvanenko is edit warring over (against multiple editors) was originally added by a sock puppet of indef banned User:Jacob Peters. I don't know if AI is sock puppet of Jacob Peters or YMB29 (these two have exact same POV) or nobody at all, but when a brand new account brings up an ArbCom case from ten years ago ... well, draw your own conclusions.  Volunteer Marek  22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Levivich (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Alt-right, racism and white supremacy */ Removed references that don't back up the previous statements - i.e., they don't connect Molyneux to white supremacist or white genocide theories"
 * 2)  "Removing citations of Data & Society, an obscure research institute that shows no claims to either notability or reliability; see WP:RS"
 * 3)  "Re-removed "white supremacist views" statements - comments by the SPLC require attribution to them, and Data & Society presumably do too, if we're being generous and calling them a reliable source at all"
 * 4)  "Removed allegations of white supremacy - not backed up the references and thus a major WP:BLP violation. See talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) User talk:Korny O'Near


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


 * 1) Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 7


 * Comments:

Editor was blocked last week for edit warring on the same article. After the block, they engaged in some discussion of the issue at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 7, but it seems after a few days, when they could not gain consensus for their edits (essentially, remove "white supremacist" from the article), the editor went back to edit warring with multiple editors, now at 4RR. I am reporting here instead of leaving a 3RR warning in light of the recent block. Note also the WP:NLT concern at User talk:Korny O'Near. – Levivich 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of those four "reverts" you linked to is in fact a revert. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first edit to the page after being unblocked was already a return to edit warring in my view. It dealt with the same material that you were blocked for warring over, and I don't any experienced editor could possibly believe it had consensus support. Your edits since that point have - in various ways - undone the actions of other editors or attempted to restore the article toward your preferred version over the objections of multiple editors. This is edit warring. Nblund talk 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite vague. Every edit that removes or modifies content undoes the actions of other editors, to some extent. I've made a large variety of changes - some have been reverted and some haven't. Whether someone reverts an edit of mine is outside of my control. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I was the one who blocked him last time but I'd prefer a different Admin this time to show it's not just me. [User:Nblund]] is correct, this is edit-warring whether or not they are literal reverts. Doug Weller  talk 16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

— you have left the Previous version reverted to field blank. El_C 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I note with disapproval that hardly anyone is bothering to fill that field lately. It saves us admins a lot of time and I am considering simply suspending reports from now on until this is done. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take this to your talk page because I had questions about the same thing. But I note with equal disapproval that Twinkle doesn't fill in that field, and also that I frankly have no idea what that field means, and since no one else fills it out, I thought it was just some kind of leftover from earlier times. – Levivich  16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to leave this when the block was instituted, so let me put it here "for the record". Although some of them are partial reverts, they are all literal reverts: Note also that Korny's 2RR edit summary was "Re-removed ..." What concerns me is that Korny either doesn't understand the edit warring rules, or is purposefully ignoring them, and that's concerning from an experienced editor. I've never interacted with Korny before and am not familia with their edit history, but I'm not sure why, after 14 years and 16,000 edits with a clean block lock, suddenly this month Korny started edit warring with impunity, even right after their first block. My suggestion would be for Korny to just step back from this article–it's clearly for whatever reason clouding their judgment–but if they cannot or will not step back, they need to stop taking up so much of other editors' time and disrupting the article with all the reverting. – Levivich 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1RR reverted this edit by
 * 2RR reverted this edit by
 * 3RR reverted this edit by
 * 4RR reverted part of the first edit by Brad
 * Oops, I just realized I needlessly pinged everyone to a closed report. Sorry about that, I should have removed those pings before posting. – Levivich 16:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Theteeveeman reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 2)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 3)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 4)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 5)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 6)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 7)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 8)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 1)  "/* Digital channel */"
 * 2)  "/* Digital channel */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on KTTV. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on KTTV. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on KTTV. (TW)"


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

He keeps changing the article the way he sees it; these two links prove 11.2 and 11.3 come from KCOP's transmitter, not KTTV's.  Also, he won't respond to any of my warnings; he keeps reverting it and I keep reverting it back. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Mbcg66b3r and Theteeveeman are both warned. Whoever is the next to revert the article may be blocked, unless they have obtained prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlbusTheWhite reported by User:Moxy (Result: one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have began a discussion in the talk page feel free to express your thoughts"
 * 2)  "Better image resolution and image change, see talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Despite not being a 3 revert the first thing they do after their block for 3rv violation is come back and start warring again the exact same thing....time to give this guy a good vacation no one wants to deal with a disruptive editor like this. Hard to move forward when the editor simply does not read the MOS that is linked and continuously edits in the same images with fixed pixel size. We could be talking about image selection....but we can't even get past the sizing problems. Moxy 🍁 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 22:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:DerekHistorian reported by User:Nigos (Result: Warning, Protections)
Pages:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Controversial ranking of Singapore world smartest city, most safest country, most technology ready nation. are outdated Singapore single sources FULL OF MISLEADING LIES ignored again and again,  2019 puts Japan or Iceland the world safest city, Ai Dubai or Helsinki the world smartest city, Most technology read nation? there's only a 2016 source which shows Singapore, there's no source 2017, 2018, 2019, any results could change by those years. Economy competitive only in May 2019, is too early"
 * 2)  "Tons of sources of puts Hong Kong as the world most expensive city, again another controversial ranking, this whole page needs to be cleaned up. IT'S SO MESSY all it's sources relies only on strait-times."
 * 3)  "Modern Singapore is a global hub for education, [ truncated ref wiki markup ] finance, healthcare, [ truncated ref wiki markup ]
 * 4)  "I removed all the the part about Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15], there hundreds of countries that are a global hub for one or many things,, the Singapore wikipedia page deviates from MOS:INTRO putting economic rankings here also deviates.  All that is already mentioned on the sections below, also Singapore does have the highest life expectancy as of 2019."
 * 1)  "Modern Singapore is a global hub for education, [ truncated ref wiki markup ] finance, healthcare, [ truncated ref wiki markup ]
 * 2)  "I removed all the the part about Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15], there hundreds of countries that are a global hub for one or many things,, the Singapore wikipedia page deviates from MOS:INTRO putting economic rankings here also deviates.  All that is already mentioned on the sections below, also Singapore does have the highest life expectancy as of 2019."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Disruptive editing: new section */"
 * 2)  "/* Warning: Three-revert rule on Hong Kong. */"
 * 3) This warning isn't part of original report, but shows edit warring on other pages as well:  "/* Warning: Edit warring on Turkmens. */"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They tried to solve the issue on the talk page, but kept on making personal attacks at. They also appear to be wikihounding Feinoa, especially on Hong Kong. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 13:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted the diffs for the attempts to resolve dispute on Talk:Singapore. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I had to reformat the report here manually as somehow the TW substitution didn't work properly. I had to manually format out the ref markup in the diff comments, as I do not know how to properly nowiki the entire link. But I believe it should be immaterial. Please check through the reformatted report to see if I have left out anything here. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

has not only been edit warring on Singapore, but also on Hong Kong, which resulted the latter being given full edit protection as well. May I draw attention to this particular diff comment that they have made: "I've waited for more than 24 hours to make this revert. Please discuss this on me on Talk:Hong_Kong page. I'm completely disatisfied with the fact that Singapore is allowed to glorify and exaggerate it's wiki page with a huge paragraph mentioning it's competitive economy, international ranking but Hong Kong is not even allowed mention a small part of it." Emphasis is mine. This edit came after make 3 reversions in 24 hours prior. I believe this is an evidence that the editor is skirting the WP:3RR in order not to be immediately reported as edit warring. This pattern of behaviour is not confined to Hong Kong but onto Singapore as well. and I had tried to counsel him to be civil, not engaging in bad faith in his discourse, as well as pointing out that consensus would have to be sought page by page rather than ramming down his edits on the page. However, it seems to be it is futile. In Singapore article, he is trying to remove the rankings from being mentioned in the lead, while in Hong Kong article, he is trying to put the rankings in the lead, and at the same time, he is calling out what he perceived to be double standards in the treatment of both articles. Despite having raised valid points, I find his comments on the Talk pages as well as in his edit summaries uncivilised and provocative, while his edits are being disruptive and time consuming, so much so that the editors on both pages are beginning not to address his accusations, me included. I feel that I am (at the very least. but I am sure some other editors on the Talk pages are feeling the same way too) not able to engage him while he choose to communicate in such a manner. robertsky (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Doug Weller brought by User:Ermenrich and User talk:Doug Weller brought by User:Horserice. They might want to add something. Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DerekHistorian has been edit warring across many pages, see here, , , . All from different pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, have a few things to add: Many of DerekHistorian's recent comments are about perceived double standards treatment when comparing the Singapore and Hong Kong articles. He has, up to this point, not sought consensus on either article's talk pages in a conducive and cooperative manner. Instead, he has been aggressive to the point of unduly accusing people of being sockpuppets. Furthermore, he's also been trying to use the actions and opinions of other editors (including mine) as sole justification to enforce content onto articles (see, , , Talk:Singapore). Regardless of the validity of his points, this editor's not being civil and his behavior is becoming obstructive. He continually rehashes the same argument that Hong Kong is portrayed in a less "glorifying" manner than Singapore, and ignores repeated appeals to tone down his rhetoric. Other editors are currently suggesting a topic ban on him for Hong Kong and Singapore. However, it now seems from the above comment that he's been edit warring even in other unrelated pages as well. While I'm not sure what would be appropriate in this case, given the apparent pattern of disruptive editing, I think that some action other than full page protections (which have been done already) is necessary at this point. Horserice (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DerekHistorian also made this edit. Its edit summary makes it look like that the more barnstars you have, the more "privilege" and "power" you have. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup horrible approach but this can be frustrating and would get under anyone's skin. That said a break is perhaps best be it self-imposed or not.-- Moxy 🍁 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what exactly are you implying here? Do clarify, thanks. Feinoa (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the interaction and I kind of understand why DerekHistorian is frustrated. There definitely seems to be some amount of tag-team-reversions happening (Btw, thank you for the link; I am amazed that Wikipedia has such cool data analysis tools). I think page protection is the way to go and perhaps DerakHistorian needs to be reminded how to properly discuss on the talk page. I acknowledge they are trying to discuss, but the walls of text is putting me off unfortunately.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:DerekHistorian is warned for edit warring. Both Singapore and Hong Kong are now fully protected, by User:Chetsford and User:Kudpung respectively. If other admins had not already done these protections, it was likely that User:DerekHistorian would have been blocked. People should be careful when throwing around charges of socking. For more background see the bottom of Talk:Singapore and Talk:Hong Kong, including some comments by other admins. At Talk:Singapore, Derek Historian has announced in upper case that the page is FULL OF MISLEADING LIES. This seems to be a dispute about the relative prominence of the two cities, Hong Kong and Singapore. Using a revert war to try to correct such an imbalance (if there is one) is an especially bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:81.35.37.251 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The term "incubation period" is common and easily understood. Thus, when I found it patronisingly "explained" in the article about Legionnaires' disease, I fixed it. Doc James reverted, claiming "Was fine". Somebody else made the same change, saying "simple enough for a reader to understand (and there is always a wikilink)"; Doc James reverted them. I restored the improvement two further times; Doc James reverted each time. Somebody else attempted a compromise, retaining the patronising "explanation" but changing the order; Doc James reverted. On the merits of the case, although they started a talk page discussion, they have presented no evidence to support their belief that this term is not widely understood. Though their fourth revert came a few hours more than 24 after their first, in this case, I think it is clear that their behaviour is problematic, and so I am reporting it here. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that the jargon "incubation period" is common and easily understood, and I find your repeated use of the term "patronizing" to describe a simple content dispute to be incredibly annoying.


 * Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles says:
 * "When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." If I had noticed this dispute, I would have reverted to the version that conforms to MOS:MED.
 * If you don't like our manual of style. the way to change it is to request a change is WP:MOSTALK, not to revert an editor who is following our existing standards for dealing with medical jargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The user may or may not be right about the content dispute, but edit warring is still edit warring. Though in this case, I actually agree with the IP editor. That discussion is better served by remaining on the talk page. In this case, User:Doc James seems to have reverted more than just one editor to breach 3RR. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

TIMELINE: At this point the statement had been stable for four full years. This looks to me like an attempt to reach a compromise and to find out whether the other two editors really want to remove "length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms" or whether they just want to include "incubation period" I say Doc stays at 1RR, others will argue that this is 2RR. At 04:55, 17 September 2019 the 24 hours expired on Doc James first revert, so he is now at 1RR or 2RR --Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Start of August 2015: "Patients with Legionnaires' disease usually have fever, chills, and a cough..."
 * Start of September 2015: "The incubation period, or length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms, for Legionnaires' disease is generally two to 10 days..."
 * Start of October 2015: "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms is generally two to 10 days..."
 * Start of 2016: Same. Start of 2017: Same. Start of 2018: Same. Start of 2019: Same. Start of September 2019: Same.
 * 18:39, 15 September 2019:‎ 81.35.37.251 changes the stable version to "The incubation period is generally 2–10 days..." with the snarky edit comment "do not patronise" 0RR
 * 04:55, 16 September 2019: Doc James reverts. 1RR
 * 09:48, 16 September 2019: Tigraan reverts 1RR
 * 15:49, 16 September 2019: Doc James changes it to "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) is generally 2–10 days..." 1RR or 2RR - see below.
 * 15:50, 16 September 2019: Doc James changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) " to "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) (Continuation of previous edit. RR unchanged.)
 * 18:01, 16 September 2019: 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment. 1RR
 * 18:09, 16 September 2019: Doc James reverts with "Restored per MEDMOS" comment. 2RR or 3RR
 * 18:39, 16 September 2019: 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment 2RR
 * 18:53, 16 September 2019 Johnbod reverts to Doc James version. 1RR
 * 09:22, 17 September 2019: Tigraan changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period)" to "The incubation period (length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms)" Not a removal or restoration of "length of time..." so this is a new edit and Tigraan's RR is unchanged.
 * 14:43, 17 September 2019: Doc James reverts. 2RR or 3RR
 * should note I agreed w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of agreement with Doc James on the talk page, but that should not matter. You are not allowed to edit war even if you are right and even if everybody agrees with you. Doc James did not violate the 3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" rule. That's an easily-checkable fact. Did he violate the "edit warring without hitting 4RR" rule? I don't think he did, but of course the IP who filed this thinks he did. That's why we have administrators to decide who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be useful for this IP to disclose all their prior accounts. I doubt this is the first dispute I have had with them (regarding specifically complexity of language). Additionally this was opened within a minute of the "warning" on my talk page and I made no edits between. Also I do not think I have breached 3RR. Plus as mentioned we have guidelines that support the version I was restoring. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my first thought when I first saw this, that as you have one, possibly two, long-term editors who have an unhealthy lengthy obsessive grudge against you regarding previous wiki video dispute, grammatical typos and importantly whether to increase the use of nontechnical descriptive terms, and thus this edit war report likely relates to that. I smell a sweaty WP:SOCK! So, yeah, with the fact that the IP geolocates to a favourite tourist hotspot for British holiday makers, I think it is highly likely a long-term British editor you have a dispute with has utilised their holiday to the Canary Islands to make use of access to IP addresses unrelated to their country of origin to bait you into an edit war, and evade detection via a Sockpuppet investigation. This is not a good faithed editing dispute. On that basis I think the ip editor should be blocked on behaviour alone regardless of whether Doc James technically breached 3RR. Don’t feed the trolls. This IP editor is stalking, harassing Doc James and trying to WP:GAME the system — they are very well experienced in Wikipedia procedures, clearly.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with this. The user is highly familiar with advanced WP-speak and from the get-go regards anyone who does not understand "incubation period" as an "idiot" - classic sock temperament and skill-set. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent me. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend a one or two week block on this ip sock until the UK established editor loses access to the IP address and returns to the U.K. from their holiday in the Canary Islands.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you do not indulge in wild fantasies. Provide evidence for every one of the claims you have made in this astonishingly weird attack on me, or withdraw them. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, a very quick response, highly unusual for an ip editor, such Wikipedia addictive behaviour usually only occurs in established editors with many thousands of edits and who own an account.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this user's time-wasting comments be removed from the discussion. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No action. Call us many things, but we're not entirely stupid - the chances of an editor being blocked on a case filed by an IP which is obviously an experienced editor, and oddly geolocates to a Spanish island mainly populated by British holidaymakers, is zero. Not that the IPs edits are all problematic - indeed most of them look productive, which again points towards an experienced user.  But this filing is closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, should we semiprotect Legionnaires' disease? The IP is still edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Lectonar protected it for 7 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kurtkra reported by User:Robertsky (Result: User was blocked independently)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Spam"
 * 2)  "Spam"
 * 3)  "Wrong information"
 * 4)  "Wrong information"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "→‎removal of sourced information: new section"


 * Comments:

3RR violation, no attempts by User:Kurtkra to engage in Talk page to resolve dispute. robertsky (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this article is currently under AfD. robertsky (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

None from this board. The editor was probably blocked by  with the reason: Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: It appears that the subject of an article register this account to whitewash the article robertsky (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) robertsky (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolution

User:2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449 and User:68.1.171.165 reported by User:AzureCitizen (Result: Two IPs blocked)
Page:

User being reported: IP user using two different IPs (see geolocation data):

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
 * 2)  editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
 * 3)  editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
 * 4)  editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)
 * 5)  editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
 * 6)  editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
 * 7)  editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User removes warning seen here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not posted on the Talk Page.

Comments:

They've made five reverts within the last 24 hours, and the latest revert took place after being warned (see link above). Furthermore, before revert #5 of 7 above, they went so far as to try and post an edit warring report against User:Garuda28 about the same content, seen here, so they obviously understand what edit warring is and kept it up themselves just the same. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update 24 hours later: They are now stalking User:Garuda28 by following his edits on other Wikipedia articles and reversing Garuda28's content edits to harass him while using seemingly innocuous edit summaries so that it isn't obvious to others.  Garuda28 stopped by my Talk Page to ask what he should do; you can read my suggestion at this thread:  User_talk:AzureCitizen.  Would appreciate an administrator doing something about this.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both of the reported IPs are now blocked one week for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Vickyindia17 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result:72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jai Shri Ram. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jai Shri Ram. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * The edits were POV-laden and clearly unacceptable. I've blocked 72 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: As is also obviously the same editor I have blocked that account indefinitely.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:WildScience1976 reported by User:Zefr (Result: 72 hours; sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Luna (killer whale). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luna (killer whale). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* September 2019 edits */ new section"


 * Comments:

User appears to be an aggressive advocate wanting to write a documentary on Wikipedia, and has been reverted and warned on the article talk about WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The editor appears to be related to the Seattle Orca Conservancy, and a WP:COI notice was given. The editor has also soapboxed, plagiarized, and inserted copywritten material, as noted in the diff listed above. Until late today, the user has not participated in talk page discussions, and now states that their view is predominant, with no other editors providing consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 01:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jaishri17 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:


 * An obvious sock of and, separately reported. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In reverting the obvious sockpuppet today, I have been careless and also exceeded 3RR. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nik888 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked 24 hours. )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Makes abusive comments on my talk page.

Jingiby (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Killer Chihuahua 14:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:72.184.164.38 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Give reasons for your revisions or it's admin abuse. Three accurate, reliable sources were given."
 * 2)  "Fixed the references."
 * 3)  "Fixed final issue, reworded to make the reference accurate"
 * 4)  "predb.ovh does not link to, facilitate, or promote copyright infringement in any way, shape, or form."
 * 5)  "Fixed the reference"
 * 6)  "XREL only functions as an informational database of Scene and nonscene releases, there's no downloads/cracks/etc. there at all."


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


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


 * Comments:

Despite several editors explaining why their edits are inappropriate, they've continued to edit war. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 18:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User warned previously for the same revert

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

User does not engage in consensus building according to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The user does not explain how the provided source support the material on the page, nor the relevant policies supporting their argument

Comments:

Issue description. Ythlev (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both users were warned about edit-warring at this article last month at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive395. I have blocked them both: Ythlev for 48 hours (first block) and Wadaad for one month (blocked for one week for edit-warring in July).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Page protected)
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:
 * 
 * 
 * Administrator abuse on the Croatian Wikipedia # Another concerning development
 * 

Comments:

The article has been protected three times in the last two months (on my request), and as soon as the last protection expired editor resumed with reverts, removing in the process not only properly referenced prose, which is the only revision that makes some sense by relying of several good sources, but also all template messages and merger template as well. Discussion on the proposal to merge "Turkish Croatia" → "Bosnian Krajina" was supposed to resolve both problems, the existence of a problematic article, as well as the entire dispute surrounding it, however it is now completely overwhelmed by Croatian editors from Croatian Wikipedia, thus being completely disrupted and should be rendered as irregular. I tried to draw attention to these developments in a report on Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents. I'm a little bit baffled with the lack of interest, if not with the lack of concrete reaction. Amazingly, on Croatian Wikipedia they have something called |"List of irregularities at English Wikipedia" (where the article and its merger proposal are "campaigned" /Turkish Croatia), which is a subpage of Croatian version of "Village Pump", and obviously serves as a sort of forum for collecting information and preparing an organized approach and unison action toward articles, edit-wars, disputes, on English Wikipedia (being a subpage it's obscured from passing-by outside editors' view). ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ban proposal: I recommend that User:Ceha and User:Santasa99 should both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia under the WP:ARBEE sanctions, of which both have been notified, due to the large number of reverts each one has made since August 1st, and the three different article protections that have been needed. I suggest leaving this proposal open for a while to see if one or both editors can explain how they can otherwise resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Striking my proposal, see below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I didn't deserve any better. If you are prepared to recommend same sanction (ban) for an editor who has filled two+ Talk pages in the last two to three months, full of attempts to come up with a resolution, while wrestling with editors who were coming out of outside project (Croatian Wikipedia), taking turns in waves and never putting together two sensible words in reply (yesterday Shokatz, today Silverije, tomorrow Ceha, day after tomorrow Kubura), and who has done everything that Dispute Resolution guidelines recommends except completely disengaging. You yourself have been involved in some of the discussions as a mediator, not to mention situation where you left me at the mercy of editor who insulted me (DIFF (troll, idiot, among other things)) and accused me without pointing at any evidence (DIFF) on your own Talk page. But hopefully, you are going to scrutinize that article if I get removed from it.--09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is couple of suggestions for a resolution: I will never open that page again if you are going to thoroughly check everything about it, so that imposing a POV onto articles by means of bullying and blatant canvasing and campaigning at editor's "base-camp" (language / ethno-national) project does not become rewarding modus operandi - you may or may not be aware, but Ceha could gladly accept sanctions against him, as long as those same sanctions (ban) were used against me too, because the rest of his crowd of like-minded editors, who were also involved all this time (editor Silverije: DIFF; DIFF; DIFF; DIFF ("voting" for the second time in the same discussion); DIFF; DIFF; same user disregarded previous merger and without any discussion deleted Redirect, and without any sources, concerns of previous discussions on notability and verifiability, recreated page HERE), would do his bidding for him - DIFF; DIFF; Take an eye onto discussion; Can you send me an email; Tražim pomoć (asking for help); Glasovanje (you can start voting); Turkish Croatia (canvasing and campaigning at Croatian Wikipedia "village pump" subpage called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia")
 * Or, we could try to resolve a dispute by following guidelines and policies on notability and verifiability, or even better, by agreeing to merge problematic obscure article with fringe subject with a larger more prominent one, to put its content under the scrutiny of a slightly wider community, but without (Siverije's unabashed) canvasing on the editor's base-camp projects (such as Croatian Wikipedia) by those who are against any of the proposed mesures - which is everything I've been trying to propose in the last two months?
 * Otherwise, I should start getting used to indiscriminate sanctioning proposal.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is another really serious proposal, but only if Ed is really serious when he said that he will leave the AN open in case we can offer a realistic plan to resolve the dispute in some other way. Although, I really have no idea what "realistic" might mean, or if it's just a word that could later serve as an excuse to dismiss all suggestions as "unrealistic", but if Ed is willing to hear and engage that would be really great, and in that case scrape all what is written here before, and here's my suggestion - we can also invite all three antagonistic Croatian editors (it's how they self-identify) but also all others who appeared in the merger discussion through canvasing on Croatian Wikipedia, all that should be irrelevant if we do as follows: we organize a new debate in which each sentence, paragraph by paragraph, is scrutinized in both version of the article, and everyone should explain their reasoning, point by point, and try to validate it with neutral and reliable sources. (article is not at all that big, so this job shouldn't be overly torturous.) However, an evaluation should be made by admin Ed, on which he would base his conclusions and actions (or not). I already engaged with aforementioned editors, writing at least couple of full A-4 pages in attempt to resolve issue, so I am not willing to write in circles, without an end in sight, and without admin who is willing to literaly judge on our rationals. We can ping every time we make a point on important sentence or paragraph.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 month, by User:El C. I am withdrawing my suggestion (above) that Ceha and Santasa99 both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia. During the page protection, changes can be requested on the article talk page using the Edit protected template. Readers of the article may notice that it is currently tagged for notability. As it says in the article itself, This suggests that an AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Gleeanon409 reported by User:Carn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2019-09-19T13:41:54 - delete source requests ( +00:00:00 )
 * 2) 2019-09-19T14:29:44 - delete source request again + delete addon ( +00:47:50 )
 * 3) 2019-09-19T19:25:20 - delete OR marks without consensus on talk page + again deleting addon ( +05:43:26 )
 * 4) 2019-09-20T05:46:04 - same ( +16:04:10 )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

When a participant deletes any and all changes of another participant in an article, this is usually a sign of destructive behavior in my experience.·Carn !? 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Carn has proven unwilling or unable to comprehend the very source they’re disputing, claiming it doesn’t contain exactly what it says. Because of this they’re tagging and arguing on the talk page.
 * As well they insist on de-linking grand marshal because... it doesn’t have an LGBTQ meaning.
 * As well they insist in wedging in another superfluous sentence about dresses when the subject is already covered.
 * I would love for more eyes on this, it’s been a rather circular course so far. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "They"? I'm kind of alone and don't suffer from multiple personality disorders. About "de-linking grand marshal" - that's my mistake - didn't notice "Some US Gay pride associations appoint Grand Marshals".
 * You do not have a monopoly on what should be considered superfluous and what is not, do you agree? Statements must be verifiable and backed up by sources. For some reason, you are silently rolling back without a single argument so far my attempts to put sources in a paragraph without a single marking of the source from other paragraphs. This is where your roll backs began. The fact that the sources are in the article does not mean that the reader has an understanding of the source of this particular statement.·Carn !? 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed your words to those used in the source you indicated. I also returned the information that Desmond is gender fluid that you have groundlessly deleted. If you stop rolling back, then this conflict can be considered settled.·Carn !? 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Carn still doesn’t understand the linking protocols; grand marshal doesn’t need to have ANY reference to LGBTQ to be linked, at all.
 * Carn also doesn’t realize that the WP:Lead doesn’t have to have any references at all, as long as content is referenced in the body, which it all is.
 * And anyone reading the article could tell that what they were adding about dresses was superfluous; and that tagging content not comprehended was a part of the problem.
 * I would appreciate other editors to look into the edits. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * for violating 3RR. This page is not the place to discuss your dispute with . The article's talk page was the place to do that, before you reverted so many times.  When your block expires, please start a constructive discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree with content other users have added to the article. –Darkwind (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Phipperz reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916981253 by Ravensfire (talk) you need to stop edit-warring. I have discussed there. no one raised any more objections after my last post in the talk page. stop edit-warring please."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 916977467 by Ravensfire (talk) this has been discussed in Talk page. Discuss there if you'd like. Justifications were given there. Do not undo it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 916975796 by Ravensfire (talk) discuss in Talk page if you'd like. The article was reviewed and has appropriate tags on it"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 916975701 by Ravensfire (talk) it is not promotional but a fact. the museum is open to public and can be verified."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916975701 by Ravensfire (talk) it is not promotional but a fact. the museum is open to public and can be verified."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* September 2019 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Entrepreneur? */"
 * 2)   "/* Museum */ new section"


 * Comments:

Very probably a COI related to this article given their WP:OWNership, but they've insisted there isn't anything, but their actions speak loudly.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Response by Phipperz: Ravensfire is the one Edit-warring. He refuses to discuss or look at the prior discussion under the Talk page. What can one do? He simply makes edits without justifying properly or looking at prior discussion after the article was reviewed. I am followed all guidelines and talked with other editors. And the article was reviewed. I had accepted all justified edits. And there is a talk page to discuss with prior discussions. I don't understand why Ravensfire would report me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

'''Please review my (Phipperz) talk page and the article's talk page before taking a decision/action on me. I'm trying my best to learn and be a good Wiki citizen, and am willing to listen to others while I raise my own justifications as well.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phipperz (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 48 hours. It takes (at least) two to edit war, and both of you are edit warring.  Please continue your discussion either on the article's talk page or on one of yours, and please remember to keep it WP:CIVIL. –Darkwind (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages and notice boards. –Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much,. I am grateful to you. I would request if you could undo his edits of "entrepreneur" and "museum", which is discussed on the Talk page of the article. If that's not possible, I'll respect that. I think Ravensfire's other edit was reasonable--where he mentioned source in quote. In any case, appreciate your help and guiding me to use Wikipedia properly. Phipperz (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:Chronus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:104.219.46.242 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lane_(white_supremacist)&diff=917004278&oldid=916512206
 * (Is this correct?)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added the self-description drawn from the SPLC"
 * 2)  "White-washing of David Lane: Removal"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 917004405 by Grayfell (talk)The Nizkor Project"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 916512206 by Grayfell (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on David Lane (white supremacist). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* September 2019 */  Reply"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Annoying edits being made by an IP */  New section and response"


 * Comments:

3rr violation following slow-burn edit war. For at least the past month two IPs from different locations have been dead-set against identifying Lane as "American" based on OR, primary sources, and synth. My attempt to discuss this on the talk page provoked an accusation of whitewashing, and more OR. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Drmies for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:88.14.181.97 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 917000799 by Acroterion (talk) of course it is. the text had been in the article for five years. You've edited the article dozens of times since it was added, thus implicitly approving it. It just needed to be made encyclopaedic in tone, bearing in mind WP:NOTE"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 916990263 by MONGO (talk) I didn't put it in, I just edited it. doesn't matter if their nationalities are elsewhere: here, it says "60 passengers", so it needs to be clarified that that figure excludes the hijackers"
 * 3)  "they were passengers though"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See warning by. Enough is enough with animalistic nakedly intentional disruption by this IP, as well as the condescending edit summary You've edited the article dozens of times since it was added, thus implicitly approving it. It just needed to be made encyclopaedic in tone, bearing in mind WP:NOTE.

Also see this gem. Clearly indicative of a WP:NOTHERE mentality. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation of the 3RR has been reported. This user has today decided to attack me for no apparent reason, and language like "animalistic" is grotesquely insulting and unnecessary. The user has themselves broken the 3RR on Pearl River, and is presumably filing this report, about a situation they had nothing to do with, to try to distract from that situation. 88.14.181.97 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Classic WP:NOTTHEM rope to deflect from the fact that not only myself, but deemed this IP's edits at Pearl River to be deliberate disruption. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not call another editor's edits "animalistic", or you risk being blocked for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the Best Known for IP? I defer to anyone more familiar with it, but the style and persistence suggest it might be. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never seen BKFIP use an IP from that location.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, he was there 13-14 September -- the last time he was blocked. That's what persuaded me it was him. Antandrus (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. Unfortunate, but thanks, it will be helpful to me in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, summary range block, especially given other evidence (such as the "not encyclopaedic" trope used by this recent sock). The continued socking and precocious supposed familiarity with Project policies, while at the same time, ignoring WP:BRD when it conveniences them, suggests a SITEBAN is in order. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The IP was blocked for one week by Antandrus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 917130593 by TaerkastUA (talk) Not including “Taiwan” is against consensus"
 * 2)  "Revert disruptive editing"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Refusing to seek consensus is wrong on a community encyclopedia */ ."


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


 * Comments:

Also note the further aggression and obfuscation (claiming I somehow "selectively edit" my own talk page). All signs of bad-faith conduct. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that User:CaradhrasAiguo is systematically abusing Administrative noticeboards, this particular post is a prime example of that as it was spurred by an argument on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack which CaradhrasAiguo joined uninvited. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're involved in a content dispute across multiple pages. I've engaged both and asked them to dial back the hostility and focus on content. Nothing to see here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not engaged in a content dispute with CaradhrasAiguo, I am however in a content dispute with Simonm223 which he should have mentioned in his comment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: PP 2 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 916593175 by Reywas92 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 916482384 by Reywas92 (talk) You have used all caps, curse words, and name-calling which are all against Wikipedia policies."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 916479398 by Reywas92 (talk) It’s not polite to call other users names."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 916301961 by Reywas92 (talk) You should not use foul language."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 916225247 by Reywas92 (talk) a consensus has not been reached"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Please also see previous report and warning User_talk:Dlambe3. I recognize and regret my unfortunate participation in this editing conflict but I have made attempts to resolve dispute at both Talk:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges without avail. Dlambe3 was clearly made aware of both of these but completely rejected participation in them. This user has reciprocated no effort to discuss this issue. Reywas92Talk 04:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 48 hours. This is a somewhat slow edit war, but still an edit war. You only just missed violating 3RR by some 47 minutes, You did violate 3RR, although I am not blocking you at this point because the disruption has ceased and blocks should not be used as a punishment. However, I expect the next time you appear on this noticeboard, you'll likely be blocked if you don't change your editing behavior. If you disagree with someone's edits, you need to participate in a discussion somewhere other than your reversion edit summaries. Similarly, commenting on someone's behavior by reverting their edits and using a passive-aggressive edit summary is not a good look.  Calling an editor a "petulant child" is hardly WP:CIVIL, either, especially in an edit summary. Please keep that in mind. –Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC) (edited –Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Please review the timestamps, he has four reverts within 24 hours after being warned and reported here previously. Unclear why his revision is the protected one when the discussion he refused does not support his removal of information... Reywas92Talk 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I misread the timestamp from the revert you labeled #4. The time from #1 to #4 is indeed less than 24 hours, and I apologize for the error.  However, at this point, a block would be merely punitive, so I am not revising the actions I took.  With regard to the version of the page that is protected, see WP:PREFER for the portion of the protection policy that applies.  In this case, absent any policy-violating content on the page, I chose to protect the current version at the time I reviewed the ANEW report.  I will add a comment to your talk page about the reason behind that decision, because this report is closed anyway and further discussion here is not particularly germane.  See my edited comments above. –Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 917400286 by SanAnMan (talk) nope; the lead was significantly altered 4 days ago after being stable for months"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 917394596 by SanAnMan (talk) trim per MOS:LEAD; major edits to the lead should be discussed in talk before being implemented"
 * 3)  "ce; trim lede"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor continues to edit war, has been repeatedly warned on other articles against so, no discussion on talk page made at all by this editor SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides that the edits do not violate WP:3RR, I would like to inform administrators that they were to seek discussion and consensus before implementing major and controversial changes. QuestFour (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * please everyone take to the talk pages and consider dispute resolution, N.J.A.  &#124; talk  15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Awikivisitor20122018 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loli_Rock&diff=917753877&oldid=917753563
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loli_Rock&diff=917752844&oldid=917752610
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loli_Rock&diff=917257843&oldid=917255209
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loli_Rock&diff=916825342&oldid=916824832


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on DcEU. (TW)"

Editor appears to be obsessively creating and WP:OWNing bizarre redirects:  Toddst1 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I've blocked for 48 hours; if editor resumes upon return, file again as repeat offender. Killer Chihuahua 17:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Larry241 reported by User:Smartse (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed it....again"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "Added relevent infomation on bands and stages"
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "Added relevent infomation on bands and stages"
 * 1)  "Added relevent infomation on bands and stages"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

4 reverts post the warning given here. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Abdiurangsunda reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Despite numerous requests to this editor to take their reasons for edits to talk page in edit summaries and a note on their talk page this editor continues to edit war. Please consider a block Robynthehode (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Abdiurangsunda for disruptive editing. Is there something wrong with Twinkle?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about blocking using Twinkle that hasn't been working for me at all, I block normally, then use Twinkle's Block menu to add the notice (but uncheck the Block option.) if that's not what you're referring to, please clarify, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 17:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Doug Weller's comment in a different complaint above about Twinkle not loading the diffs. Here, the reporter used Twinkle and listed only two diffs, even though there were more.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:WrestlerHelper3 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked)
User being reported:

Page:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Page:


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

Page:


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

Note this is only some of the examples. You can see the same editing on Scott Dawson (wrestler), Template:WWE personnel and List of WWE personnel.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments:

Although not all of these articles are about the 3RR within 24 hours, its a clear EW violation, across multiple pages. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note this user is still making these same edits while this thread is open here . -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone please take a look at this? This user has now once again violated 3RR and redid this edit another 3 times today on top of the one I mentioned before  . Thats 4RR on one page while this discussion is open -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3RR violation at Template:WWE personnel. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:47.214.14.22 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Countermanding an out-of-context quote requires more proof than one-vs-one account. If you want to delete the entire entry, that would be fine, but to keep this up is disingenuous to say the least."
 * 2)  "Fine, you have a problem with bullet points, no matter how factual & well cited. Since you nor I can get consensus one way or the other and I have no desire for an edit battle, it has now been rewritten to help your sensibilities."
 * 3)  "Discussion started on talk page, no response (not even by the deleting account). Properly cited information, pertinent to the subject should be allowed unless reason is given not to."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 915825965 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * . Conversation has moved to the talk page. – bradv  🍁  02:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:189.156.63.9 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: IP warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

I'm sorry, Twinkle won't load the diffs, but it's pretty clear. I can't do it by hand on my izpad and in any case am falling asleep! Doug Weller talk 21:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Shokatz reported by User:Sadko (Result: Both 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:
 * lead

History of similar POV pushing, edit warring and attacking other fellow editors can be see on Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić.

I tried, after my own set of bad experiences with other editors and getting steamed up about a number of things, to calmly explain that people from Habsburg crown land of Croatia (that is a dependency) can not always be called Croatian in the lead (nor their ethnicity can be introduced), but the editor in question is simply ignoring that fact, mostly based on the information that I have roots from another neighbouring country.

The editor's agressive war-like behaviour and comments:


 * 1)  Now the fact that you are going around Wikipedia and removing mention of Croatia from the articles (sourced content) is a big red flag and I am telling you now that all these articles fall under WP:ARBEE sanctions and can result in your perma ban if you continue.
 * 2) So to make a counter-question: what exactly is YOUR problem with that? 
 * 3) how such an obvious fact can be described as "insinuation" and "incorrect, hateful and offensive" is beyond me. 

+ More work at play from the same editor (on a protected page no less, which has been the subject of a number of reports and bans, all of which this user is well aware)

Page:

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

I did not open a new section on the TP because I can see that there is no healthy intent of discussion or talks of any sort. Note that this user has been a part of a discussion on the same article which took place five years ago. There was no concesus reached at the time and the style of attacks did not change.

Thank you,

Sadko (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Response: Oh the irony. The user in question here has been edit warring all over Wikipedia, one just needs to look at his edits (has been reported at least 3-4 times and blocked at least once for his behavior in the last 3 months or so) and see that the edit wars in which the above user was involved have one and only one distinctive feature. Now the fact is we have sources for the said historical persons (articles in question) which describe them as "Croatian" yet this person insist on removing that sourced information despite the MOS:OPENPARABIO. The user has failed to provide any substantial argument (or any whatsoever in fact) why such sourced information should be omitted (and blatantly removed) and there is lack of proper explanation either in the edits, on talk page or anywhere else for that matter. In any case as can be seen from the above no 3RR was broken, if anyone broke the said rule it is the above user reporting me who was involved in a very serious incident on Ivan Gundulić (before I got involved recently) not so long ago where he broke 3RR repeatedly and where the page had to be (semi?)protected...I guess he took this as a sign of "victory" since the other involved party was anon user. Ridiculous and paradoxical behavior...one where the "kettle calling the pot black" can be appropriately applied. Oh and I have warned the said user to stop edit warring two days ago, a message which he deleted. The only reason why I haven't reported him was that he actually stopped but I guess it's time for him to try a new "tactic", eh? Hilarious... Shokatz (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Response: There is no "sign of victory" (arguments are not about winning!), just this sort of war-like behavour and pointing fingers in order to clear away the dirt from oneself. Just for the record, I was banned only once for almost 11 years. I have explained very clearly on the TP why views can not be pushed this way. The same was done by another fellow user on *lead. Those attempts are and will be futile, because the idea here is that it's a fight for one's people and country, against imaginary aggressors and so forth. Pretty disturbing, at least in my book. :) Sadko (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And yet you do it all the time. Just some examples: Roger Joseph Boscovich (edit warring, 3RR broken against at least a couple of users), Greater Serbia (edit warring, 3RR broken), Bosnian genocide denial (involved in a edit-war with several other users), Ivan Gundulić (edit warring, 3RR broken repeatedly)...etc. These are just the edit wars you were involved with and 3RRs you've broken - THIS MONTH ONLY. Not to mention the fact you are going around removing mention of Croatia from articles about certain historical people but don't apply the same reciprocity when a certain article is about a person described as "Serbian" can the least described as highly dubious and contentious on your part...not to use harsher language... Shokatz (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Response: More than half of those are not 3RR (RJB was vandalised). In fact, one of those alleged edit wars was reported here, you can and should search better. Nobody is going around delibaretly removing anything (on the paranoid line), the same was done on a number of other articles on people of various ethnicites. The fact that you are going around searching for ways to discredit me, only reflects your editing, personality and approach to this report. In the end, you see what you want to see. cheers Sadko (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually all of those listed are 3RR violations...I've checked your edits for this months ONLY. I bet if one digs a bit deeper one would find even more. Roger Boscovich article was indeed vandalized - by YOU. And yes, you are indeed going around removing certain sourced content while not applying the same reciprocity to similar articles not containing a certain "key word". And finally, there is no need to "discredit you", as you are doing a fine job by yourself. Shokatz (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, editor Sadko didn't engage in breaking 3RR at Bosnian Genocide denial article. (S)he did revert some statements in separate reverts and in longer time frame, (s)he argued these reverts I argued back with finding better sources and re-framing references better, to which (s)he disengaged. Editor Sadko and myself probably disagree on all political issues and our perspective on history is probably diametrically different, but I never experienced same persistent will for engaging in edit-wars with him like I experienced with you in case (s)he mentioned here, namely Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić article, something that can be seen in other examples of your pushing of particular ethnicity into leading paragraphs, like when you dragged over the edge a productive editor Timbouctou (himself self-identified as Croat) HERE.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well first of all my "dispute" with Timbouctou dates all the way back to 2013 and guess what...I was actually right as my claim was substantiated by the source. That I broke the 3RR then yes, 2013 was the year when I actually started engaging in Wikipedia a bit more actively so I still didn't know certain guidelines. As for you...you're just another POV pusher that engages in edit-wars, the fact you're still not at least topic-banned (for which you were recently suggested by an admin) is mind boggling...but patience, keep up "the good work" Just your behaviour on Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić where you were engaging in edit-war even before I came in and then started reverting me as well...not to mention your deplorable behaviour on Turkish Croatia. In any case no wonder you support your fellow POV-pusher, you have found one thing in common...well maybe two...removing mention of Croatia (sourced indeed) and I guess me for I did not let either of you to delete sourced content. :) Shokatz (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Shokatz and User:Sadko are warned for edit warring at Vlaho Bukovac. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked unless they have previously obtained a consensus on the talk page for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The other editor reverted Ivan Gundulić, a protected article. I did not change that new POV content during all this time. Who should revert the article to prior, stable version? I will not touch Vlaho Bukovac, but it seems to me that the current version is a clear and painfully obvious violation of MOS: Lead. Sadko (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The prior stable version was before you came in and removed sourced content which spawned the edit-war between you and anon user...until I stepped in. Shokatz (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jeff6045 reported by User:Jaakko Sivonen (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (If I correctly understood the report form's description)

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 user has reverted five times within 24 hours which is a violation of the 3RR policy. In the edit summaries he claims it is due to vandalism but I think he is being very loose with the term. I started a new talk page section on this particular controversy six days ago (before today's edit war) and today advised him to address the controversy there. He responded on the talk page in the middle of the revert war but didn't wait for the discussion's conclusion before going back to reverting. He was not the only one engaging in an edit war, but that is not an excuse. To be clear: I myself have not participated in this edit warring, only in the talk page discussion. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

. Since the page was sprotected with the reason of disruptive editing (by multiple IPs), I am inclined against taking further action at this time. El_C 17:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. Just because IPs are edit warring it doesn't give registered users the right to do the same. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The protection reason given was disruptive editing, not edit warring. That admin made that evaluation — I see no reason to overrule them at this time. El_C 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The IPs should have been notified about it being their onus to gain consensus for their changes. But Jeff6045 should also be cautioned for exceeding 3RR and about what vandalism is not. In terms of action, though, it would be punitive to block at this time. El_C 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Winged Blades of Godric: Reverting bad faith edit. This has not been written by a newbie, but a long standing, highly respected editor and admin. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last revision by Giano (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918048177 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The first revert did not contain any non-boilerplate edit-summary. The second revert was made using the TW-Rollback-vandalism module, abusing WP:MINOR in the process and obviously again, without a non-boilerplate edit-sum.

He has so-far consistently refused to engage in the t/p thread (opened by me) instead casting personal attacks against me.

Now, he has yet again reverted me for the third time w/o engaging in the t/p thread but rather after invoking an argument-from-authority in the edit-summary and speculating about my motivations. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WBG's actual edit was highly dubious and pointless, with a completely irrelevant policy cited - I would certainly have reverted it. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be; the first impressions were of trying to ref-bomb and thus my comment.
 * I have since expanded upon my reasoning in the t/p and dissent lies that-way. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m very much afraid I am unable to understand half of what WBG says and writes. First he bombs Bishonen with templates telling her a fully referenced new page she has spent the last week or so writing in her sandbox (he calls it “curating”) is not notable, an accusation that is plainly ridiculous. Incidentally, the page is a complement to a page I wrote a couple of weeks ago following comments by others that the wife needed a page of her own too. Immediately after his template bombing, WBG began editing the new page and removing content. I was under the impression (clearly false) that if an editor wrote a new page, then one encouraged them to continue and expand it. One does not threaten to have it deleted. Bishonen has been here a hundred years, or so it seems, she is not in the habit of wasting her time (or the project’s) writing pages on nonentities. WBG should not be allowed to continue this vandalism. I find it very odd that he should be allowed to continue and I question, with some justification, his motives. Giano    (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m very much afraid I am unable to understand half of what WBG says and writes. First he bombs Bishonen with templates telling her a fully referenced new page she has spent the last week or so writing in her sandbox (he calls it “curating”) is not notable, an accusation that is plainly ridiculous. Incidentally, the page is a complement to a page I wrote a couple of weeks ago following comments by others that the wife needed a page of her own too. Immediately after his template bombing, WBG began editing the new page and removing content. I was under the impression (clearly false) that if an editor wrote a new page, then one encouraged them to continue and expand it. One does not threaten to have it deleted. Bishonen has been here a hundred years, or so it seems, she is not in the habit of wasting her time (or the project’s) writing pages on nonentities. WBG should not be allowed to continue this vandalism. I find it very odd that he should be allowed to continue and I question, with some justification, his motives. Giano    (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing a 3RR violation here. Am I missing something?  Volunteer Marek   13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , no:-) You are correct as to the absence of a bright-line violation but as WP:3RR states:- 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. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
 * FWIW, I do note that Giano, despite his long comments against my vandalism, is yet to show up at the t/p. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no: . Also, I do not see anywhere where Giano calls your edits "vandalism".  Volunteer Marek   15:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ctrl+F for vandalism on Giano's lone comment at this page is your friend. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ctrl+F for vandalism on Giano's lone comment at this page is your friend. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * . A complete storm in a teacup. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I expected to show up. At any case must is not a good choice; WP:3RR states:- 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. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
 * I am inclined to see when Giano lands up at the article t/p, though. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Giano and Bishonen are not unreasonable people. Why not work with them instead of getting argumentative about it? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to think Ritchie333 is WP:INVOLVED, this is my opinion: . Be aware that you are just as close to the 3 revert rule as Giano is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to think Ritchie333 is WP:INVOLVED, this is my opinion: . Be aware that you are just as close to the 3 revert rule as Giano is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SouthernKangaroo reported by User:217.130.92.146 (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User has reverted six oh, there's the seventh! times in about three hours. 217.130.92.146 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So have you. Should we block both of you? Favonian (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And you reverted seven times as well, and removed a warning from your talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:STATUSQUO, I restored the 16:43, 19 June 2019 version (last stable version from before edit war) and warned the edit warriors. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Favonian, is another sock? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Vcuttolo reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Vcuttolo hasn't yet gone past the 3RR line this time. But if his previous edits are any indication, he may very well cross it even with this report in progress, or make some WP:POINTY edit to the article. Vcuttolo has been warned about edit warring at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article more than once, including here before his third revert on that specific material. On the article's talk page weeks back, he stated, "Let's see how often I continue to get reverted by someone or another for daring to try to balance out this article." After I warned him there on the article's talk page about edit warring, he went right back to edit warring. Eventually, the article needed to be full-protected.

Since full-protection has worn off, Vcuttolo has been reverted more than once by two different editors (Crossroads1 and I) on a new piece of text, and clear explanations for why we have reverted him have been given via edit summaries. Instead of stopping and taking the matter to the article's talk page, he took the matter to Crossroads1's talk page and wrongly accused him of misconduct. He also cast aspersions on his talk page. He was very recently warned about both on his talk page, but has continued to imply that Crossroads1 and I are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Acroterion has already blocked him once for personal attacks with regard to the article in question. We have tried to discuss matters with Vcuttolo on the article's talk page, but it was hardly constructive because Vcuttolo would simply ignore what we were saying to him about rules (including Wikipedia's sourcing standards and WP:Due weight), and he would also go back to attacking us. It got to the point where Acroterion hatted the discussion. Recently, Vcuttolo made this WP:POINTY edit even though that material had been debated extensively on the talk page, and it's been thoroughly explained to him why it's WP:Due. He was reverted by Crossroads1. I'm not sure what else should be done now, unless it's to have the article full-protected again or report this matter at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll say more later when I have time, if I get a chance. But to add on to what is explained above, I do believe Vcuttolo intends to edit war, perhaps while "technically" not violating 3RR, and thus gaming the system. On the article's talk page, he has spoken about trying to represent "the facts", even though I explained we represent reliable sources. I, like Flyer22 Reborn, am unsure what else should be done regarding all this, but admin(s) experienced with edit warriors should look at the situation. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Something worth pointing out is what the discussion began with: Vcuttolo stated, When I visited the "Death of Jonbenét" article some time ago, it placed the investigation into proper context: The Ramseys have been repeatedly cleared by authorities, and the current investigation is focused on finding the outsider who broke in and committed this murder. I visited the article yesterday, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the entire tone had shifted drastically, to where the conspiracy theories had now been presented as if they were mainstream, and the belief of the authorities that this was committed by an outside intruder treated as an "alternative" scenario. He was thereafter pressed repeatedly to show exactly when the article was like this, but he never could do so. What the quote shows is that he is intent on shifting the article to reflect a certain POV (the one he claims it had before). I told him, "It isn't our job to figure out who did it and evaluate evidence. Since RS, together, do not know who did it, Wikipedia cannot rule on who did it, or argue for a particular POV." And, "We are not here to argue over facts and their intepretation. The reliable sources do that, and we report what they say." This issue of Vcuttolo trying to get articles to conform to his particular take on these controversial matters has occurred for many subjects over a year and a half, as can be seen at his talk page: He doesn't seem to get that articles are supposed to reflect the Wikipedia-defined reliable sources, not just the sources that he has concluded are reliable.

Tying this back to this noticeboard: even though he has reached but not broken 3RR, I think the pattern explained above by Flyer22 Reborn, and his past behavior patterns, shows that he intends on edit warring until he gets his way. It may be WP:SANCTIONGAMING, specifically borderlining. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above raises the question of "What exactly is a wikipedia defined reliable source?" And yes I am familiar with WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a person, so it cannot define anything, it is a repository of definitions, definitions created by various people. Definitions created by a consensus of people, people who each have their own ideas, and eventually get weighted by he or she who has the most followers or power. I do agree if the Benets have been cleared, then attempts to  portray otherwise are POV pushing, and why I ask would someone be so emotionally involved in this subject to spend time trying to push a POV? All I can say is strange behavior for a subject, which ostensibly, has no personal effect on anyone. But humans are irrational  creatures. On the other hand a reliable source is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, unless it is an obvious sensationalist or fringe publication like the Enquirer or Globe or Fox News. My point is that WP cannot define anything, because WP is not a person,  it is simply a site on the internet which is acted upon by thousands of different persons. Kind of silly to  refer to it as an organic and sentient being.Oldperson (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We can only go by what reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. The fact remains that there are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more mainstream or that the family member theory is fringe. Furthermore, clearing the Ramseys has been criticized by more than one source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * . The edit war appears to have stopped, and 3RR was not broken here. Long-term behavioural issues can be reported to WP:ANI. – bradv  🍁  21:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:99.203.56.8 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: previous, including non-controversial changes


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 918093721 by Peter NYC (talk). There does not need to be an "independent source" for the statement that his awards were indeed awarded and verifiable to be factually correct. The National Law Review biography is factual. This is a crucial characterization of the journalist work and directly pertains to the article's content."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 918087030 by Peter NYC (talk) The criticism has been addressed repeatedly in the talk section: it does not belong in the introduction given that a single source does constitute a "reputation". It already has its own dedicated section where more objective statements are reported."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918085179 by Grayfell (talk) Please do not make up your own standard of relevance, the awards are clearly described in the footnote biography and are directly related to his very occupation as a journalist and work which is the main subject of the article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 918083278 by Grayfell (talk). This has nothing to do with self-promotion and is standard when warranted. Your provided guideline clearly states "without attribution". The awards are linked in the first footnote. Please refer to the other hundred of accepted articles reporting similar attributions when highlighting the individual's work."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on John Solomon (political commentator). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Repeated vandalism and bias editing */  Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Repeated vandalism and bias editing */  Comment"


 * Comments:

Several other IPs in the same area have been pushing this edit for the past few days.

This edit lumps two separate issues together: the addition of "award winning" to the first sentence, based on a very flimsy source, and the inclusion of a summary of unflattering material in the lede.

This person also appears to be in the news recently, such as this article in the Washington Post. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected 1 month. Steady reverting by a group of IPs with no track record who appear to share a POV but never use the talk page. I'm leaving a note on talk about some possible issues with article neutrality. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:Ajñavidya (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (deleted by the user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been introducing changes in an article without achieving consensus in the talk page, even after called to do so. The user has a recurrent behavior of removing warnings from their user talk page ; in reference to my warnings, the user described the removals as «troll» and «harassment by troll» respectively. Their behavior is not constructive and very difficult to deal with for me, since I have involved in several edit wars with them in the past (concretely because they do not properly justify their arbitrary edits in the talk page and engage in constant edit wars). During the edit wars that involve this user, often a group of other users appeared to push for a common POV in conjunction, although it is unknown if this group behavior is intentional or not [see users involved between diffs:  ]. Due to all this, it's for me hard to keep assuming good faith, and, in my opinion, it's likely that the user is involved in sockpuppetry and/or canvassing. Ajñavidya (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Non-admin comment: I think we need a boomerang here. Ajñavidya has been problematic for some time on this and other articles covering far right wing politics and politicians. They have a very obvious POV to push and it is understandable if editors are finding this frustrating. Back in July, I had to warn them for using dishonest edit summaries that misrepresented the consensus of discussion on a talkpage on Carlos Maza and that escalated into a final warning before they backed off. I now see that they backed off, not to behave better, but merely to behave badly somewhere else. This brings us to the Tucker Carlson article. So, what have we here? I see that the "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" above is timestamped 2019-09-27T05:33:51 and that the report above is timestamped 2019-09-27T10:47:24. So they allowed 5 hours from their first and only attempt to discuss this on the talk page before reporting here. Other users, including Wallyfromdilbert, had been discussing it for some time before this. Plausible objections to the referencing and accuracy of the removed content have been presented and it does not sound good for the content in question, at least in the form that it is currently written. So did Wallyfromdilbert do anything wrong here? I certainly don't see any 3RR violation and I also see other editors also removing the same problematic content suggesting that consensus closer to being on their side. So what is this? A sloppy report or a sign of actual bad faith abuse of the reporting system by an editor with a POV to push seeking to silence their perceived opponent? I don't know exactly, but somewhere between WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE I think we have a problem with Ajñavidya. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I made 2 reverts in 24 hours, and my changes were supported by at least 3 other editors (only Ajñavidya objects to them). Given the unsupported aspersions about "sockpuppetry and/or canvassing", I would like for Ajñavidya to be warned about their behavior towards me. I can also take this issue to ANI or AE if one of those is more appropriate. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Wallyfromdilbert and User:Ajñavidya are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they edit the article again on the subject of politically-motivated harassment of Carlson or members of his family, unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The four edits listed in this report cover a period of more than 24 hours, so this dispute should be treated as a long-term edit war rather than a 3RR violation. It appears that politically-motivated harassment was first added to the article by Ajñavidya on 15 August, though it has been removed by others several times. Ajñavidya's charge that Wallyfromdilbert is engaged in 'sockpuppetry and/or canvassing' is not credible. (The local climate of editor opinion may not be very sympathetic to Tucker Carlson). However, it is my guess that a full discussion would support some mention of the 'political harassment' topic. If you have the patience, consider an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Edward Zigma reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:05, 28 September 2019 "Undid revision 918386908 by Harshil169 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 918384519 by DeluxeVegan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918375981 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 918373247 by DeluxeVegan (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 918373247 by DeluxeVegan (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * This user is hostile towards other users and his/her reply towards warning are enough to prove it. S/he is also engaging himself in the personal attack as s/he did at Talk:Jesus water miracle and accused me for spreading hidden agenda. This is clear violation of WP:Civility and hence, I think short term ban on him will be enough for him/her. <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 12:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; response of the user:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kaliningrad (the user claims there is strong consensus for their version, which is clearly not the case).

The user has 126 edits and for whatever reason has a strong opinion that the article must use British English. Strictly speaking, they have not made three reverts in 24h, but they edit infrequently, and every time they show up at Wikipedia they make a revert. I hope it can be handled here, without a need to go to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * – 72 hours. Long term pattern of edit warring on Engvar since late August. Judging from their contributions, they have been doing this to other articles as well, such as Marcel Proust and Tver. When we notice a newly-created account with a jokey name that reverts a lot, like this one, we may imagine it is a sock. Let's hope that is not the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:S.A. Julio reported by User:Sakiv (Result: filer warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rvv"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Sakiv (talk) to last version by S.A. Julio"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by Sakiv (talk) to last version by S.A. Julio"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 918263522 by S.A. Julio (talk): No live updates (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 918417244 by S.A. Julio (talk) Stop having bad faith"

He acts as an owner of the pages and lets no one edit before he is the first to do so. I hope to put an end to his actions and give a severe warning for him. An incident between us before had been kept silent then but now the situation was no longer bearable.--Sakiv (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * That's not true at all, I check once all matches are completed before updating the templates. Just because I sometimes am the quickest does not mean I "own" the page. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The edits were disruptive to the page, as information/statistics/scores should not be added while a match is in progress. At WikiProject Football there is a consensus not to add live scores and not to update any statistics while a match is in progress. When the user updated the page, three of the games were still being played, and the table could have therefore changed if any of the teams scored. I was meaning to leave an explanation to the user after all the matches had finished, but it seems they decided to open a discussion here first. Also the message they left on my talk page had no relevance to restoring his live table update. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * It is clear that consensus indeed exists against live updating. I have protected the template earlier following Sakiv's request; I will unprotect it now, warn Sakiv, and will block them if they continue edit-warring.Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated the results of two games that were ended, but he preferred to spark a edit war instead. You have to look at all my edit that are not part of "live updating". S.A. Julio is the one who must be warned not me. The origin of the problem is that he violated the three-revert rule not because of my "live updating".--Sakiv (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You updated the results of four games at once in your edits:
 * Hoffenheim v Mönchengladbach (ended 15:18 UTC)
 * Augsburg v Leverkusen (ended 15:19 UTC)
 * Paderborn v Bayern (ended 15:22 UTC)
 * Leipzig v Schalke (ended 15:28 UTC)
 * Your first edit was at 15:20, while Paderborn v Bayern and Leipzig v Schalke were still ongoing. Leipzig v Schalke was still being played at the time of your final edit. Any goal would have changed GF, GA, and GD, along with possibly the table order if Paderborn scored. League standing tables are meant to show the result of completed matches only, so when I see continuous addition of live standings in my watchlist it looks like vandalism to me. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied at the talk page of the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't evade the essence of the complaint. The aforementioned has made a clear violation to everyone.--Sakiv (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have here a clear case of WP:IDHT.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 reported by User:Kay girl 97 (Result: Stale)
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:

Nerd271 is deleting the article subject's Personal Life section even though I tried to compromise. Westenra marital status changed recently, which she herself announced. Her first marriage was well documented in New Zealand (she's known mainly in New Zealand) via https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11180343.

I asked what I should do on the BLP Noticeboard (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/917468847). After thinking it over, I decided to just leave it just saying she's married (via third revert) and not say she's divorced until a better source says so, but Nerd271 decided to not have it, even though it was like that for several years now when she first married. Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is it stale? I put an edit that was on there previously for years when she first got married back in 2013, but he keeps reverting it. The thing is that Westenra shared wedding pictures with us online and in a magazine, but he keeps arguing none of our business. Kay girl 97 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:109.100.15.244 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Standard issue NPOV-related rapid-fire 3RR violation, edit warring against two editors (myself and Gorilla Warfare). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, by the time I got there to notify them, GW had issued a 24-hour block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Flaughtin reported by User:61.90.77.135 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is engaged in an edit war in which he is removing cited material from the article calling it "POV and irrelevant material" he has been reverted and contacted at his talk page after his first revert. As a response to this he has reverted the article once again without an edit summary, did not respond at his talk page and deleted the message at his talk page as well as his past warnings. 61.90.77.135 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems pretty likely that you're a sock of . As such, I've undone your edit and protected the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lessee, after blocking the IP as a sock, another IP that geolocates to the same area comes in, says the block was justified (as if they knew for certain that OP was a sock) but doesn't want the page locked with the revert in place. Yeah, obviously not another sock only digging himself a deeper grave. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lessee, after blocking the IP as a sock, another IP that geolocates to the same area comes in, says the block was justified (as if they knew for certain that OP was a sock) but doesn't want the page locked with the revert in place. Yeah, obviously not another sock only digging himself a deeper grave. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)