Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive397

User:Feminist reported by User:STSC (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user Feminist has recently created the new article. I have contributed some edits which were reasonable and non-controversal but the user just indiscriminately reverted and also undid most of my edits. Please note I did not put back any of my edits that was reverted or undone. STSC (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The four diffs above all seem to be reverting different things, so I don't think that counts as a 3RR violation. But it's clear that both of you need to be discussing changes on the talk page rather than fighting on the article itself. The changes in question don't seem to be major issues so you should be able to come to a compromise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "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" per WP:EW. - STSC (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually noticed that after I wrote it. Struck. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, anyway, your advice is appreciated. STSC (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: 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.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67 reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User:Peacemaker67 has been engaged in making a point for long time now, but seems he has really lost control of himself and allowed to break 3RR rule. He is making clear WP:SYNTH, the source says nothing about Chetniks having any anti-Yugoslav policy, and he further adds anti-Croatianism and anti-Muslimism without willing to provide precise quotes for it at talk-page. He has made several reverts on several articles for last weeks, and now has made 4 reverts in little more than 2 hours without providing the necesary quotes at talk-page. Even worste is that he is an admin and as such he should provide an exemple on how to behave on this cases. I knew about this dispute, it kept apearing in my watchilst, I gave him a chance to provide exact quotes, but he chose to edit-war and try to play the rules. FkpCascais (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. There are two separate things going on here. The first diff is me restoring the unexplained unpiping of several terms in the infobox regarding the ideology of the Chetniks. The IP reverted my piping, so I reverted them as the terms I had used were those in the source. This was the end of these reverts, there have been no more reverts regarding piping.
 * I should add that IPs have again popped up to revert the piping, but other editors reverted them, and the article was subsequently semi'd to stop the disruption. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then Fkp completely deleted three ideologies from the infobox along with the citations to them, claiming that the source did not support those ideologies. although it is apparent from later edit summaries that Fkp had not in fact read the source. I restored the material, stating that the source did in fact support the material, and posted on the talk page quotes from the source. Even though I had already provided the material on the talk page and Fkp clearly had still not read the source in question, Fkp again deleted the material with the edit summary "It shouldn´t be a problem then to provide exact citations for the community to see at talk and see if they are SYNTH or if they say really that" I reverted Fkp with the edit summary "I've already provided direct quotes on the talk page. Perhaps you should read the book before you make a claim it doesn't contain what I have added and cited, and now provided on the talk page".
 * So, there are two different issues here, one regarding piping with two reverts, and one regarding the deletion of ideologies with two reverts. Fkp has a long block log for disruptive editing including discretionary sanctions under ARBMAC. In contrast I have a long history of writing balanced and neutral Featured articles in a controversial area (Yugoslavia in WWII). This should boomerang on Fkp for deleting reliably sourced material and citations when it is clear he has not read the book himself and is just here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding the Chetniks. This is backed up by the fact he has been recently ranting about my supposed anti-Chetnik POV at Talk:World War II without providing any evidence. My next step here is to start a neutrally-worded RfC for a community view on whether the material is supported by the source. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add that an uninvolved editor has now provided a second reliable source for the material deleted by Fkp. Fkp is clearly engaging in POV editing and should be seen as such. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue is already solved. FkpCascais tried to remove well-sourced content in a very sensitive article. Reverting many times is never a good solution, and I think everything became a mess after an IP editor made several reverts trying to push their POV in several ways. FkpCascais never reminded Peacemaker67 of the fact he had already made 3 or 4 reverts before filing the report; this is not a sign of good faith. Peacemaker67 is one of the best editors Wikipedia has (among other things, probably the best content writer), and does not deserve such situations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. @Peacemaker67 has always kept a dignified manner and stayed above the fray, where a lot of the times many other editors editing Balkan topics have fallen short. I hope common sense prevails here and this matter is speedily closed.Resnjari (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree to close this case and move on. My intention is not to punish anyone, just to call the atention of the rules and that this issues need to be dealt carefully. Peacemaker67 added "anti-Yugoslavism" few days earlier and he had no source at time, instead he pointed out to a section in the article claiming Chetniks being pro-Serbian meant they were anti-Yugoslav. Now he came with the same edit, further adding two more ideologies. My search doesn´t give me any positive result saying Tomasevic ever used those terms in his books, that is why I reverted. However, I did a wider search and found a totally different book from Milan Deroc from 1988 (search "Chetniks anti-Yugoslavism anti-Moslemism").

The issue here is different. The isue is that having just one source is not enough to label one entire movement as such and add it to the infobox. Chetniks in WWII are not really that obscure matter and we have enough of literature on the issue. Being admitedly controversial by historiographers themselves, the issue of Chetniks has been dealt in a wide range going from them being Allied heroes to demonise them as genocidal collaborators. So, adding each and every claim by any source gives us nonsensical situations as having both Yugoslavism and anti-Yugoslavism added. It would be better not to add any claim found, but rather seek a way to find what scholar sources say regarding the issue in general, WP:UNDUE, and searching objectivity and neutrality. In this case we have conflicting claims, Chetniks, officially named Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, being anti-Yugoslav while being a Yugoslav army, well... Furthermore, claiming they were anti-Croatian and anti-Moslem (even the word anti-Moslem is grammatically incorrect found in only one source) while they were open to all Yugoslav nationalities willing to join them, is controversial, as well. It is well known Croats overwelmingly joined pro-Axis Ustashe rather then Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, and the last in their anti-Axis actions engaged against Croatian Ustashe regime, but that doesn´t make them anti-Croatian, as Ustashe were only a radicalised, German-backed, portion of Crotian national preference. Regarding ideologies, historiographers make different claims, it is an issue that should be evaluated carefully, and not just by cherry-picking the claims with one source only backing it, just because one backs that POV.

Adding in the infobox that Yugoslav Army in Fatherland is anti-Yugoslav while it was the official Yugoslav army for much of the conflict, is rather an exceptional claim, specially by being backed by only one source. Taking it to talk seems most reasonable. Edit-warring to add such content doesn´t seem correct to me. I made this report wanting to call the atention to this. Peacemaker67 knows Chetniks is a controversial issue, so his insistance in cherry-picking sources that clearly make exceptional claims and edit-warring for it just because he has one source is something I dont agree with. Chetniks and related articles have seen a long-standing low-frequency conflict between editors adding all possible negative connotation to them (collaboration being their must) against editors opposing it, remembering most historians, specially non-Yugoslav ones, fail to provide such accusational claims, and some also praise them for their resistance efforts. Being that the case, I made this report because I believe an editor should not break our rules for believing being right for having one source. We had a mediation on this, which concluded world-wide historiographers generally don´t agree with the anti-Chetnik narrative, and that there was much propaganda made against them by the Yugoslav communist regime and its historiographers. However, some ditors ignore the mediation conclusions and keep on adding one-sided content only. Maybe it is time to agree a new dispute resolution mechanism. FkpCascais (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The case was solved. There was a talk-page dispute on that issue and it wasn't any 3RR violation(s). Jingiby (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Devil's advocates aside, FkP has a serious point and arguments give by him about historic revisionism taking place on this and a number of other articles is - rather distrubing... Sadko (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rep. We would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree with you more. Well said, well said.Resnjari (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I dd Jingby (I tend to always give a chance to people, in general), but than I saw your pushing of Bulgarian POV bordering with propaganda on all Macedonia-related articles. Therefore - save me the Hypocrisy. ty Sadko (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, this page is for discussion related to potential editor who is edit-warring, but not for discussion about other editors or other unrelated topics, or statements based on your personal thoughts or feelings. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "publish 2 sources from books and 1 website.Add few details about Lasia stalk in sri lanka and its uses ."
 * 2)  "Add citation and source for lasia stalk paragraph."
 * 3)  "Add reliable source for information"
 * 4)  "Add about Lasia Stalk. Because in wikipedia there is no"
 * 5)  "add details about lasia stalk"
 * 6)  "add about lasia stalk"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of supposed medical benefits of this product; the ref does not support the claim. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Pw1845 reported by User:Amaury (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

User talk:Pw1845. Amaury • 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support block for EW here – editor has been reverted multiple times, by multiple editors, making additions that are contrary to the MOS, etc., and has made no attempt to communicate. Also appears to be a WP:SPA, as this is the only article they've edited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:JimTwitter reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 918730173 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 918729884 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Early modern period */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 918419420 by SmithGraves (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 918477936 by SmithGraves (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 7)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 8)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 9)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 1)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 2)  "/* Classical antiquity */"
 * 3)  "/* Classical antiquity */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Europe. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Copyright violation on Europe. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Europe. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Massive copyvio additions to Europe. Will not stop despite warnings. Please see this sample copyvio text: they would kill and enslave millions, pillage and raze cities to the ground, and transform the mighty Mediterranean Sea into the Empire's own private lake. The only time in human history when the whole of the Mediterranean would be under one single government was under Roman rule. from 10 Brutal Facts About the Roman Legions. This is just a small portion of the rest of the copyvios, including unattributed GFDL violations from wikibooks. Dr.  K.  02:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mockingjay28 reported by User:Citobun (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The previous editor, Citibun failed to cite sources stating Wong's status as policitian. Thus, this revert has been made."
 * 2)  "Please cite the proper souces stating that Wong is a politician."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918782180 by Citobun (talk)"
 * 4)  "Corrected statement according to Hong Kong law"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joshua Wong. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* September 2019 */"


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


 * Comments:

This is a single-purpose account pushing a POV. I attempted to resolve the issue in response to a message the user left on my own talk page, calling attention to the policies at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, with no success. Citobun (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Citobun took the cited sources as non-constructive and charged me with engaging him/her in editing wars, which I never wanted any part of. I abide by the Wikipedia policy in editing and give the necessary information for my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mockingjay28 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:146.90.125.113 (Result: Filer blocked 2 weeks )
Page:, ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, ,

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


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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user has, for no apparent reason, attacked me and several of my edits this morning, reverting four times in a short period on three articles, without any attempt to explain how they think they are improving the article, or how I did not do so. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been reverting this person per WP:BANREVERT as they were blocked for edit warring in the range Special:Contributions/46.208.192.0/18. An example sequence is found at Jon Pertwee where the edit warring action was to remove some text from the intro. Our friend filing this report is evading the rangeblock, and should not be editing here until the block is lifted. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm neither banned nor blocked. Even if I were, that would not justify restoring policy violations to articles. The user is also persistently deleting my explanations of my edits, evidently wishing to discredit me. See the ludicrous situation at . And in a further example of their dishonesty and disruptiveness, they falsely accused me of vandalism at WP:AIV. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they are requesting page protection to support their deletion of my explanation. They have now deleted it 12 times. Insane. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And now they are deleting my comment on their dishonest request for page protection. 146.90.125.113 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * by . I think the IP's edits make the article better and a bit more readable, myself. Smells like WP:BKFIP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Pageseditor reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 918689773 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 918689633 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918688474 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 918686997 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 918686726 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 918686661 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 918645488 by MarkH21 (talk) - Restoring neutrality and right of public information (previous attempt of 'harmonisation'/whitewashing by MarkH21)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 917552881 by MarkH21 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "reverts and refs are not minor"


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


 * Comments:

3RR violation and clear edit warring without any attempt to even explain blanket reverts of different edits, let alone discuss — MarkH21 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per policy, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not explicit 3RR but still blatant edit warring. Those reverts are to separate edits of completely different content, such as section moving, POV tags, removal of blog sources, etc. The editor is making blanket reverts without explanation. — MarkH21 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's edit-warring just as much as you. All I see you doing is removing content sourced to The Guardian with "not news" and no discussion elsewhere; okay perhaps events belong on the separate protest article, but perhaps also a short summary is applicable here? I don't know, that's why you need to discuss. If I were to take sanctions, I would also have to block you to be fair. I don't think that's what you'd want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I only did that removal once. The only edit I repeated was moving a section into a subsection. These are blanket reverts on the other user’s part. — MarkH21 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither party broke 3RR. But if either User:MarkH21 or User:Pageseditor makes further large edits on this article, without prior discussion on the talk page, it is likely to get unfavorable attention from administrators. So it would be in the interest of both parties to explain their thinking at length on the talk page, rather than making short cryptic comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A genuine question: are my edit summaries at Hong Kong Police Force really overly cryptic and short? (For the “news” edit summary in particular, there was an existing talk page section about it.)I understand the need and convention of going to the talk page, and I apologize for not going there earlier, but this just seemed like mindless reverting. I tried both of the first two points of WP:BRB since the didn’t make any sense. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:R3N13R reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

. El_C 17:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Reggiepscl reported by User:GPL93 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on CA Spirit Regina. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on CA Spirit Regina. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Article creator has removed CSD tag three times despite warnings. Without any attempt to communicate or rectify issues with the article. GPL93 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * comment User:Reggiepscl has removed the tag a fourth time in spite of warnings. GPL93 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked the user for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Zahin346 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: 48 hours because OBVIOUS)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 918856137 by Koncorde (talk)  How about you edit without that Messi bias in your head kid? His contribution against Verona and SPAL cannot be overlooked. The only crufty nonsense is you claiming you're not a Messi fanboy."
 * 2)  "Lmao. Why are you continuously removing Ronaldo's goal against Serbia? Does it hurt so much? Like Serbia isn't even a top footballing nation. Jesus effing christ"
 * 3)  "Keep reverting the important info salty fuchs"
 * 4)  "It bugs me to see Messi fanboys trying to discredit Ronaldo assists, while logging every relevant info about Messi. He hasn't played 1 full match this season, yet his page has more info than Ronaldo who so far has played a vital role in keeping Juve  toe to toe with Inter"
 * 5)  "Reverted back.If you have to trim, trim away the useless stuff. We are one the 7th matchday of Serie A season and Ronaldo's page looks like he scored that 1 goal vs Napoli. Contributions against Verona and SPAL must be here."
 * 6)  "All stuff related to Euro 2020 should have the header 2020. While it is true that every goal need not be logged, doesn't mean editors should log 1 goal out of 10 he scored. Serbia goal was important. Reinstating it back. feel free to undo it again. Our team will keep undoing it. Cheers"
 * 1)  "Reverted back.If you have to trim, trim away the useless stuff. We are one the 7th matchday of Serie A season and Ronaldo's page looks like he scored that 1 goal vs Napoli. Contributions against Verona and SPAL must be here."
 * 2)  "All stuff related to Euro 2020 should have the header 2020. While it is true that every goal need not be logged, doesn't mean editors should log 1 goal out of 10 he scored. Serbia goal was important. Reinstating it back. feel free to undo it again. Our team will keep undoing it. Cheers"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Influx of Messi fanboys ruining this page by removing(and not letting other editors adding) relevant and important goals and assists */ r"


 * Comments:

User is ignoring attempts to explain WP:NOTADIARY on 3 different talk pages Spike &#39;em (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B803:5FCC:CD28:59F:21FF:CB3 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 919086823 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919086727 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919086637 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 919086585 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 919086456 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 919086379 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 919086289 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 919086114 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 919085691 by Skywatcher68 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mfwitten reported by User:The Mirror Cracked (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 919117894 by EvergreenFir (talk) The information was never removed. It's still in the article. Please read the article and the talk page before making edits like this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919109011 by Aranya (talk) See the talk page. That is the start of the edit war, not the version before the war."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919106587 by The Mirror Cracked (talk) Information moved. Talk page explains. DO NOT EDIT WAR. You have been warned."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 919106120 by The Mirror Cracked (talk) It is not for us to decide whether it is central. Clearly, there is a dispute. Do you have a citation that it is central? If so, consider putting it in another sentence."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Inclusion of the skin color of Jean and Guyger */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * User:Mfwitten is aware of the rules around edit warring - see . They have now threatened to continue to edit war unless their preferred version of the article is kept . The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the Talk:Murder_of_Botham_Jean adequately explains my position. I am the one who is trying to prevent further edit warring. Mfwitten (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 23:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

User:71.170.34.242 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: 1


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 3RR-breaking revert
 * 2)  "/* Career */ Opinion notes from a masters dissertation without appropriate context or other sources noted."
 * 3)  "/* Career */"
 * 4)  "/* Career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on George S. Benson. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is clearly engaged in politically motivated blanking mainly on this page but also a bit at Harding University a couple months ago. Other user warned on user talk as well. EDIT: User has now violated 3RR, added diff above. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fyrael reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Fully protected; both editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 919394238 by Alex 21 (talk) per previous summary and talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919390903 by Alex 21 (talk) BRD does not apply, as there is no long-standing version of this. Another editor placed the first "100" episode, so would appear to agree with their relevance. You are outvoted on this"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919232885 by Alex 21 (talk) and restored; more than one editor believes these should be here, so please continue the conversation on talk"
 * 4)  "not 100% sure we should include these, but if we have one we should have them all"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Disambiguation page */ Replying to Richhoncho (using reply-link)"


 * Comments:

The above editor is having clear issues with edit-warring over the content of a disambiguation page, having violated 3RR at the article at hand. To prevent further disruption, I have informed the editor that I refuse to edit-war with him/her, ceasing any further reverts against them as a civil editor, straight after they directly admitted that they were more than willing to partake in an edit-war simply for the sake of it. I see no willingness in the editor to change or cease such behaviour, especially after they reverted their talk page warning with further personal attacks. I do wish to discuss the topic at hand, but I believe the editor to only want to personally attack editors who disagree with them and happily engage in edit wars. -- / Alex /21  14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've locked the article for one week. It was either that or block both edit-warriors, and . After the protection expires, I don't expect to see either editor touch the page, although they are welcome to discuss the issue constructively on the article Talk page. Consider my expectation a warning to both.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , so the comment of "I will, however, join you in the edit war" is completely acceptable, where an editor admits that they are happy to violate policy in spite of the other editor deliberately stating that they will not edit war with them? I'll be sure to add that to WP:EW. -- / Alex /21  02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post report:
 * (Reverting the impish little cherub again)
 * (Undid revision 919396479 by Alex 21 (talk) reverting the child. You should check out WP:DTR, although we both know you're not so good at reading policies)
 * "So childish", "I will, however, join you in the edit war over those other entries"
 * Unacceptable behaviour. There is clearly no intent to discuss this civilly or "constructively". -- / Alex /21  04:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the 3rd point is not post-report, and in fact was included in the report. The other two are edit summaries when I removed this user's equally combative messages left on my own talk page, to which they had pursued me.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the admin actions here. We both warred and broke 3R and I additionally didn't follow BRD. Initially when my entries were reverted I was not going to restore them because I do normally respect BRD, but I became inflamed when Alex attempted to purposely mislead other discussion participants by claiming that the additions didn't exist. So I convinced myself I wasn't really breaking BRD, and on came the edit warring, etc. Thankfully I became busy at that point and haven't been back to my computer until now, so I'm fine now and will not touch the main page anymore.
 * To, I wish I could believe that you simply "wish to discuss the topic at hand", but that's not what I've seen. When you try to mislead others as stated above, declare the issue as "solved" in the middle of discussion, and ask questions that all involved know the answer to like "why have primary topics at all", it leads me to conclude that you are as much interested in provoking other editors as you are in discussion. And considering the action chosen by the admins, it seems like they also see through your ridiculous innocent act you put on in your initial report here. The ridicule and relishing in reporting me added in your last talk page addition probably didn't help.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Fyrael: Mocking your opponent in edit summaries is a quick way of finding out whether admins feel like enforcing the WP:No personal attacks rule. You have claimed that Alex 21 is a child and is unable to read policies. Your sarcasm clearly exceeds that of Alex 21. I trust that your words were a momentary lapse and from now on you will avoid ridiculing the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? This user comes to my talk page to harass me and I call them a child when removing the harassment, and that's me acting out of bounds? That cannot possibly be right. And you're using a bizarre rubric if you think each of us telling the other they don't read well is somehow me exceeding them.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you have been warned by two administrators. Please strike through and adjust your responses accordingly. Also note the editor's continued refusal to continue the discussion - hard to discuss the content when one editor refuses to. -- / Alex /21  05:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made exactly one refusal to continue battling with an editor whose motivations I strongly question. Waiting for other editors to contribute is the correct action for me to take. There is no requirement for me to continue a discussion, provided I'm not trying to edit the page without communication, and I've already said I'm not going to touch the page again.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:184.146.207.178 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "/* Release */"
 * 2)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 3)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 4)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 5)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 6)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 7)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 8)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 1)  "/* Release */"
 * 2)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 3)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 4)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 5)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 6)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 7)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 8)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 1)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 2)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 3)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 4)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 5)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 6)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 7)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 1)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 2)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 3)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 4)  "/* Sequel */"
 * 5)  "/* Sequel */"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * – 1 week by User:RegentsPark. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Pageseditor reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 917552881 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 918645488 by MarkH21 (talk) - Restoring neutrality and right of public information (previous attempt of 'harmonisation'/whitewashing by MarkH21)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 918689773 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 918689633 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 918688474 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 918686997 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 918686726 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 918686661 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 919487445 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 919487384 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 919487184 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 919487129 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 919486976 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 919486831 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 919486631 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 919486552 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 919485963 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 919485293 by MarkH21 (talk) - restored to the previous version as a request of page protection against vandalism is under review by Wikipedia moderators"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 919485963 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919485293 by MarkH21 (talk) - restored to the previous version as a request of page protection against vandalism is under review by Wikipedia moderators"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   →‎Talk:Hong Kong Police Force is available to all parties: new section
 * 2)   "/* Blanket reverts */ no reply?"
 * 3)   "/* Blanket reverts */ diff link"
 * 4)   "/* Blanket reverts */ will restore since no reasoning or discussion of reverts on 6 distinct edits"


 * Comments:

I left asking Pageseditor to explain any of the 8 reverts that the editor made on the article on 6 separate edits on different aspects on the content. You can see these in the previous AN3 report.

Pageseditor ignored the requests but (which actually supports 1 of my 6 edits) after I made those requests. As Pageseditor continued to neglect giving a single reason for their reverts or engage in any form of discussion on the reverts, I re-introduced the previous edits (and revised the content further) with notice on the talk page. Pageseditor then blanket reverted all 10 of these new edits and.

This is blatant edit-warring without any attempt to explain any one of the 18 undos (4 blanket reverts if you group by consecutive edits). — MarkH21 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

. You can't list continuous edits as disparate reverts — it doesn't work like that! I'll have a word with the editor, though. El_C 18:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I grouped them in the time between my initial post and your comment! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the talk pages of 1) Hong Kong Police Force and 2) MarkH21. I would stop short of saying that he risked abusing his status as a long-time Wikipedia editor. Whilst there were excellent parts in his track record as an editor, his recent behaviour has caused slight disturbances to several editors. I don't mind being singled out and targetted by MarkH21, but I wouldn't agree with his attempt to silence a second opinion by reporting other editors. This would be a loss to the Wiki community should it be allowed to happen. Thanks. pageseditor (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is that you need to start being more responsive by better explaining your edits, especially when queried. Discuss the content of your edits rather than the individual contributor is also a helpful rule of thumb. El_C 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:2402:3A80:DE4:2F2B:45D9:8249:EE0D:25DF reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */Narrow minded edits by Bhaskarbhagawati."
 * 2)  "/* History */Bhaskarbhagawati don't know how to use Wikipedia. Somebody please block this editor."
 * 3)  "/* History */History word always study past. Nobody can say everything about at once.

Historical study infer new new things with latest discoveries.

Bhaskarbhagawati is creating issues in issueless page. Jealousy isn't good for health."
 * 1)  "It's just Wikipedia . Better to delete everything to make happy Bhaskarbhagawati

Be happy Bhaskarbhagawati"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Bodo people."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bodo people#History */ new section"


 * Comments:

The IP user is persistently edit-warring and personally attacking through edit summaries in "Bodo people" page through different range of IPs. They are invited for discussion, but they continued the pattern of behaviour. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  19:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Bankster reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:569:7C07:2600:1562:6118:8514:72E3 (talk) to last revision by Bankster (talk) (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by ViperSnake151 (talk) to last revision by Bankster (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 919142701 by Bankster (talk) (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 919142701 by Bankster (talk) (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has a long-term pattern, as described on user talk page, of engaging in changes in terminology on television channel articles that contradict regional terminology (particularly, using "pay television" as a term to denote any channel not carried FTA - despite the article implicating the term as being synonymous with "premium" services).

Bankster also performs little meaningful communication with other editors (often not using edit summaries either), though at one point they admitted to me on my talk page that this was an effort to "standardise" these terms, but without consensus.

One other revert on the article was by an IP, User:23.16.167.50. I do not know if it is also Bankster or not. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. The user has been blocked previously. In mid-September they were move-warring at Uruguayan Portuguese, causing the article to be move-protected by User:Bradv. This dispute was reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unnecessary"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919478844 by Billiekhalidfan (talk) An entire section for one song is unnecessary, especially Ariana doesn't frequently do features, and when she does they're usually singles or at least chart even if they're not."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919094426 by Billiekhalidfan (talk) One song isn't enough to warrant a section."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has a long-standing history of edit-warring, specifically when it comes to Ariana Grande-related articles; their behaviour is borderline WP:OWN when it comes to articles related to the mentioned artist above. They've received multiple warnings in the past where edit-warring is concerned, and has also received several reports concerning their editing, as well. They've also received multiple blocks for edit-warring, as well. At this point, enough is enough with this editor's behaviour.  livelikemusic    talk!  16:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and play nice and use talk pages please, <em style="font-family:Arial;color:#6600CC">N.J.A.  &#124; talk  13:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Kanak Baran Barua reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (initial insertion of the name "Kanak Baran Barua" by IP 202.86.222.49)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Based on behavioural evidence, I believe the person began editing while logged out, and logged in only after they were reverted for the second time. If one accepts that, then they have violated 3RR, but even if one doesn't, is engaged in edit warring and is not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * 1)  (edit made by 202.86.222.49)
 * 2)  (edits by 202.86.222.49 and Kanak Baran Barua)
 * 3)  (edits by Kanak Baran Barua)
 * 4)  (edits by Kanak Baran Barua)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

In 2017 and 2018, Kanak Baran Barua repeatedly tried to write an autobiography at User:Kanak Baran Barua. It was speedily deleted six times. Today, IP 202.86.222.49 started trying to add Kanak Baran Barua to a list of notable residents in Chittagong District. After being reverted twice by, Kanak Baran Barua logged in and continued the activities of the IP, adding Kanak Baran Barua to the list of notable people. They were reverted twice more by myself, warned on their talk page against adding non-notable entries to lists of notable people, told that having a Google Scholar profile does not demonstrate notability (anyone can create one), and warned against edit warring. Nevertheless, they have continued to add their name to the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Numerous edit wars about football players involving User:Fleets and User:Blue Shirt 8232 reported by User:Kerry Raymond
There appears to be a number of recent edit wars involving User:Fleets and User:Blue Shirt 8232. See this interaction report. Blue Shirt 8232 appears to be a relatively new user making a large number of edits to articles about football players involving article content flagged with a message warning against making certain changes, e.g., which Fleets is reverting. Not being involved in the editing of football articles, I do not know if the warning present in these articles represents an established consensus or simply the view of an individual who added the warning, but to me the presence of the warning in so many articles is an obvious indicator of some controversy over how "appearances" are counted for infobox purposes and hence there is a need for Blue Shirt 8232 to discuss the matter rather than implement a mass of changes contrary to a clearly stated warning. However, as a new user, Blue Shirt 8232 may be unaware of our WP:BRD policy. It seems to me that the two editors should be told to back off on editing the articles and hold a discussion at the appropriate WikiProject to determine the consensus in this matter. Kerry (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a proper report for this noticeboard. Nonetheless, I have indefinitely blocked Blue Shirt 8232 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Gaura79 reported by User:Iamrcr (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rvv per WP:BLPRS"
 * 2)  "Only two reliable sources are cited in this section, and none of them mentions Radhanath Swami. Nothing to discuss here"
 * 3)  "No RS, only primary unreliable sources. LA Times article doesn't mention Radhanath Swami"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Under section "Removal should be justified"


 * Comments:

Although a peer-reviewed journal was listed as a source for the murder allegations against Radhanath Swami, User:Gaura79 insists on removing the entire section on Murder allegations without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. Looking at his nickname ( "Gaura" is a Vaishnava name ) and his user history, it's obvious that he has a personal involvement with the subject ( being probably a follower or sympathizer of Radhanath himself ), and therefore he insists on removing every sentence on murder allegations under the excuse that they aren't "properly sourced", even when they come from peer-reviewed academic sources.
 * Although a peer-reviewed journal was listed as a source for the murder allegations against Radhanath Swami - Radhanath Swami is not even mentioned in this peer-reviewed journal article.--Gaura79 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

. You need four, not three, reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Signimu (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. User "noted", then edit warred knowingly again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User reverts 3 different editors without discussing in the article above, knowingly and refuting consensus by accusing of POV-pushing. Asked for page protection before discussing but after reverting to block the page to his version. He is also involved in conflicts on other articles and now on a crusade to revert me everywhere and issues disruption warnings for a reference deduplication.

--Signimu (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 2 of the reverts  were immediately after one another so count as a single revert. There is no breach of 3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Err the 2nd diff you show is not one of those I report above. The 4 edits above are all non-consecutive and non self-revert and under about a day. It's not that I want him to get a sanction, but I can bet the edit warring will restart as soon as someone else than him contributes, since he clearly said he did not care to break through 3 other editors' consensus. --Signimu (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad - I was looking at the article history, but regardless, there are not 4 reverts within 24 hours. What you term "under about a day" was 31 hours. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for having a 2nd look. I'm not sure what should be the process to follow now, I guess a dispute resolution to get a 3rd party opinion? --Signimu (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you've just pinged yourself! El_C 21:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes lol dunno what happened, thank you ;-) --Signimu (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion on the talk page is still ongoing so please carry on discussing it there for now. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, he's not really answering the points raised, but well I'll try to nudge everyone towards dispute resolution if discussion does not carry on. Thank you for your feedback --Signimu (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:181.177.3.61 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Correction"
 * 2)  "/* Premise */Correction"
 * 3)  "Error"
 * 4)  "/* Premise */Error"
 * 5)  "/* Opening sequence */Error"
 * 6)  "/* Opening sequence */Error"
 * 1)  "/* Opening sequence */Error"
 * 2)  "/* Opening sequence */Error"


 * Also edits back to 23 September 2019 on same article not shown in above. Obvious in edit history of article in question as basically the only IP edits in that article.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Shake It Up (season 1). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Slow motion edit warring. Pops up periodically just to rearrange the order of two of the cast members. Also doing this on other articles, this one is the most active for this IP. Seems to have a favorite he wants to list first. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a block here – this IP is not doing anything constructive with their edits, and they are clearly WP:DE in their approach to this. If the IP had attacked fewer articles, page protection would be an option. But as they seem to be targeting more and more articles now, I think a block is the only solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:103.116.208.33 reported by User:Bahudhara (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The material was contentious and unsupported by the ref given, so I raised it on the IP editor's talk page rather than the article's talk page. Bahudhara (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * there is no 3RR/edit warring warning. User may simply be unaware of these policies. El_C 04:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP has just reverted again (3rd time), and I've just added this message to his talk page:


 * The incident is already mentioned in Wikipedia, at Steve_Herczeg, in an acceptable manner consistent with Wikipedia policy of verifiability and neutral point of view.

The IP's wording doesn't meet these standards. Bahudhara (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

. On closer examination, all of the user's edit seem to be disruptive or incompetent. (3RR and edit warring are not a factor here — this should been filed at AIV rather than AN3.) El_C 04:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sefarat90 reported by User:Treannmust (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  undid edits first time at 23:22, 6 October 2019
 * 2)  undid second time at 23:54, 6 October 2019
 * 3)  undid third time at 00:05, 7 October 2019
 * 4)  fourth time at 15:40, 7 October 2019
 * 5)  fifth time at 15:49, 7 October 2019

REF: Modern Egypt: The Formation of A Nation-state by Historian Prof. Arthur Goldschmidt, Jr. - He keeps removing books based on the Egyptian nation and calling them unrelated, misleading yet quoted elite Turkish Pashas opinions and books on totally different topics like military where they made no difference between all Arabic speaking nations they ruled over and called all Syrians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Algerians..etc by the term Arabs.

He removes quotes narrating how Egyptians rejected Arab idenity before Nasser's ideology: REF: The Arab Middle East and the Modern World :

"The Egyptians are not Arabs, and both they and the Arabs are aware of this fact. They are Arabic-speaking, and they are predominantly Muslim. Indeed the Muslim religion plays a greater part in their lives than it does in those either of the Muslim Syrians or the Iraqi Muslims. But the Egyptian, during the first thirty years of the twentieth century, was not aware of any particular bond with the Arab East... Egypt sees in the Arab cause a worthy object of real and active sympathy and, at the same time, a great and proper opportunity for the exercise of leadership, as well as for the enjoyment of its fruits. But Egypt, she is still Egyptian first and Arab only in consequence, and her main interests are still domestic."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  /

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I'm not seeing a warning regarding 3RR or edit warring (maybe I missed it, if so, please quote directly) — the user may be unaware of these policies. El_C 04:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sir/Ma'am, the warning was first yesterday made by me and he instantly deleted it and reverted:, and then by a Wikipedia Admin on both our pages. He deleted all the Admin words from his page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treannmust (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Treannmust (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That user is not an admin, not that it matters. Removing a warning merely goes to indicate that the user has read it. Anyway, I'm wandering with regards to the 4th and 5th diffs listed: what version are these reverting (please cite diffs rather than old revisions). El_C 04:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully respected his warning and didn't remove the Link of Turks from a section talking about how Egyptians view themselves and their identity and its crisis. Yet the other user kept ignoring the warnings and removed those books on 2 seperate edits.   Treannmust (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A removal of text is not necessarily a revert. It could be. But it could also be a bold edit. It depends on whether a (relatively) immediate edit has been reversed or not. I'm inclined to go with a warning, unless you have anything further to add. El_C 04:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was reverted, that's his 4th time revert of my edits. Those were my last edits the one he removed. I didn't revert his edits, he keeps reverting mine all as he wants. His trick is doing tiny small edit, then reverting the whole last version. Treannmust (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When did you add that Deighton passage? Please provide a diff of that addition. El_C 04:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Treannmust (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding the 5th revert, because he uses that trick of making it appear like he's reverting his version. Here is the passage i added, inwhich he reverted too (5th time). Thanks a lot Treannmust (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 05:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:ASH Officiel reported by User:William Avery (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "MOS:OVERLINK"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kylian Mbappé . (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has shown similar behaviour on article Lilian Thuram. No heed of, or response to warnings. Only started editing here after being blocked on French Wikipedia. William Avery (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jeduzzz reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result:48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 920208156 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 920199747 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 920197739 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 920092109 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on The King (1995 film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The King (1995 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User hellbent on re-adding puffery ridden unsourced stuff not mentioned explicitly in the three accompanying sources. I've also opened a discussion at the article talk, but they seem uninterested. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The user continues edit warring. Here they reverted User:AzureCitizen's edit. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a promotion-only account, but I've amassed all the AGF available to me and have only blocked for 48 hours in order to allow them the opportunity to review the policy links provided and to prove me wrong.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Puldin reported by User:PajaBG (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of the article’s history:
 * 1)

Comments:

I linked the arcticle’s history page, as the conversation was made through the edit summaries since 28 September (my edit at 11:07). The user has been constantly adding the name “Old Bulgarian” to the name of the “Church Slavonic” language which is mentioned once in the article.

It was explained to him that the language used was the (New) Church Slavonic language (CS), not the Old Church Slavonic (OCS), which is in Bulgaria referred to as the Old Bulgarian. Old Church Slavonic has 5 alternative names in the lead section of the article, while the 7th name overall, Old Bulgarian, was mentioned much later in the article, with conclusion “The term is still used by some writers but nowadays normally avoided in favor of Old Church Slavonic.” Out of 39 wikis for CS (which can be checked cause they are in Cyrillic or Latin), none uses the term Old Bulgarian, and of 63 such for OCS, only Bulgarian Wiki calles it Old Bulgarian. Also, English Wiki has articles on all three languages (OCS, CS, Old Bulgarian), while even Bulgarian Wiki differs Old Bulgarian and CS, calling them “extremly close”. At the OCS page there is a list of 10 languages, mostly where churches still use Church Slavonic as liturgic language, and none except the Bulgarian calls it Old Bulgarian.

The user claims that Old Church Slavonic doesn’t exist, only Old Bulgarian, while he refers to the Church Slavonic as the “so called”. Also, and maybe most important for this specific article - any alternative name in this article is irrelevant: a) both relevant languages, English and Serbian (English Wikipedia, Serbian church), use this terminology b) the article is not about the language itself so adding this have no merit. Article is about the church and the language is only mentioned once in description of the mosaic.

I am sorry if this is not the report for you here (it probably isn’t), but with zillion difused guidelines on Wikipedia policies and stuff, it is hard to get it right. But I need to start from somewhere. I notified the user via his talk page. PajaBG (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The edits in question were two days ago, and the user had not been warned about 3RR. I have given a warning; I have also added the article to my watchlist, so there are more eyes on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 919195733 by Earthh (talk) vandalism!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919373091 by Earthh (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919390227 by Earthh (talk) Please STOP. Vandalism! Valuable information we can get thanks to this table are lost due to irresponsible action of this user!"
 * 4)  "/* ‎Global Icon Recipients */"
 * 5)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 6)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 7)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 919936455 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!!!"
 * 1)  "/* ‎Award categories */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 919936455 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!!!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)  "/* October 2019: new section */"

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

Comments:

Spacejam2 was already blocked for edit warring on the page in question in December 2017. After two years, the user is making the same edits which are all against WP:MOS and WP:V, adding tables which are unsourced, overlong and unreadable. The user has also removed the speedy deletion tag from an article that duplicates an existing topic, is not willing to reply in any discussion and started accusing me of vandalism.--Earthh (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The reverts are all a couple of days old. I'm not happy about the pair of you throwing false accusations of vandalism at each other, and I don't think List of MTV Europe Music Award categories qualifies as WP:A10 (but I won't have any prejudice against it being nominated for deletion via PROD / AfD). Elsewhere I see Spacejam2 has created well-received articles like Garden of the Righteous in Warsaw, so I'd like to try and get a discussion going first before I think about blocks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Bosco685 reported by User:TheJoebro64 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of the counter-reverts performed by TheJoebro64 and TropicAces:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been reverted multiple times (by myself and ) for attempting to reduce the budget range despite the fact that it's supported by the cited source. I directed them to WP:BRD to try and get them discussing, but they just ignored it. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  18:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First, noting he offered to work with me via direct chat doesn't factor in he posted a request and then not long after opened this complaint without any reasonable time for my response. That's not very sincere and could be perceived as 'going through the motions'.


 * (, and ) are referencing a Deadline reporter who is the only source stating "We hear Joker cost $70M before global P&A of $120M, but others contend that its net cost is in the low $60M range". The majority of reporting and tracking sites note $55 million, and Screen Rant stating $64 million. I noted this for both contributors more than once, and both ignored the explanation and continued to revert my changes. That does not come across as accurate reporting, nor respectful co-editing.

Credible news outlets and film reporting site references:


 * All that paragraph says to me is Deadline is showing their various sources are saying various figures; he’s not gossiping a rumor he’s reporting what his insider said. Deadline at no point mentions the $55 million figure given by Variety or TheWrap (the same figure you leave untouched in your edits), because they are not hard-set on any number; movie budgets are often misdirected or vary. Plus, as I noted on the Joker talk page and in my revert edits, Wikipedia’s own infobox guidelines state that “ If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range.” No one here is arguing to make the page read solely $70 million; just to include every figure given by publications, as per the rules. TropicAces (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
 * Fortunately I took the time above to pull in all credible reporting sources, which the majority are clearly stating $55 million as the production budget.Bosco685 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685
 * At least one of the sources you're citing aren't reliable. Not to mention that Template:Infobox film says: "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Also I've added two more reverts Bosco made (bringing his total revert count to seven) <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the five (5) reverts performed by TropicAces and TheJoebro64 who were far from innocent here in how they were trying to control the posting narrative. Just to make sure the Administrators have the full engagement picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which source isn't credible? The Deadline reporter who is the only one stating he heard $70 million as a production budget, or five (5) reporting sites noting $55 million? Seems like you both are being very selective, and in the case of TropicAces attempting to apply Wikipedia standards to your benefit versus noting with your own eyes what all other sites report. That's not solid site authoring, nor respectful co-editing.
 * And, if you take the time to read Wikipedia's Verifiability standard (Questionable sources), when all those other sources can clearly demonstrate estimates of $55 million to $64 million and the outlier is Deadline, is that reasonable to take the outlier as the statistical high truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're the one who's in the wrong here. You reverted seven times (probably more given that I just chose from the most recent 50 results). Neither TropicAces nor I violated the three-revert rule. You double-violated it. We directed you to the talk page to discuss, but you didn't listen. We even cited a relevant policy supporting our revision and you completely ignored it. Not only is consensus against you, you're doing exactly what Template:Infobox film says not to do: you're cherry-picking sources in an effort to prove a point. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, IMDb is unanimously considered an unreliable source, and I'm not sure if TheNumbers is considered reliable either. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  00:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately rather than reading my responses each time with details for the change intent, you both repeatedly reverted the changes noting Wikipedia standards in an unrealistic way when only one (1) source made mention of $70 million yet all other sources note $55 to 64 million. Five (5) times you both took turns reverting my box office changes. You both are in the wrong.


 * I seems to me that User:Bosco685 has broken 3RR. Should a block be issued? In his response to the above report, I don't see any assurance from Bosco685 that they will stop warring and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me two long-time contributors attempted to control what was posted versus respectful co-contributor engagement reverting changes five (5) times. Seems just as disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. It would have been better for you to agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fanboi123 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding protection to this page. Adding info and delete irrelevant/incorrect info."
 * 2)  "Updated the description. Added a few latest news."
 * 3)  "My recent edit was undone because lack of citation. I have added citation for my changes."
 * 4)  "First, I am a scholar of Ruthin School and I am helping to give up to date news and transparent information to other scholars and parents. I am not trying to vandalise your page and please do not block my account as I need it to continue my work. I have made changes to the introduction as the old one was no longer being used by school nor government website. And Ruthin School was never a public school. I am adding summary of the school's current statues and latest news and international views."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User had been warned on his user talk page, & reverted by multiple editors. David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Simmerdon3448 reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 920316808 by Keith Okamoto (talk) There is no violation. Hasbro announcing the end of My Little Pony Friendship is Magic on its Facebook page was not a violation, therefore neither is this. Discuss it on the talk page if you disagree, but STOP EDIT WARRING"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 920304386 by HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) It’s the show’s Facebook talking about the show’s new timeslot. If that’s not “about self” then what is?"
 * 3)  "/* Programs changing networks */ The official TMNT Facebook page has posted about the move to Nicktoons. This should be okay"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Ok then */"
 * 2)   "/* Ok then */"


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive behavior resumed after block expired. Repeated refusal to adhere to policy. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

User has also come up with multiple false claims about other users that are trying to get him to stop as "mental and emotional" abuse and always tries to shift the blame to other users rather than taking responsibility for his/her actions. Can also be aggressive at times. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * ^Said user has repeatedly used personal insults and all around uncivil behavior to “get me to stop”, describing multiple forms of intimidation, which goes against the WP:Civility policy. As you can see, I explained my reversions multiple times. It is incredibly skeevy to question someone’s mental health on a first incident. The only belligerence here are these bad-faith reports riddled with personal attacks. Why else would I be the one reported for edit warring when The Grand Delusion never bothered to explain how I was ever going against policy. He is the edit warrer framing me, as I have asked him repeatedly to work with me, not against me, and yet here I am being reported in a matter of Double Jeopardy, as these edits were already what got me an unjustifiable 31 hour ban--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

^ User is bluffing about me personally attacking him, if you go to his talk page, you can see I never personally attacked him once, I was confronting him for his behavior. His reversion explanations are false. Sorry if I come off as rude, but your mental health has nothing to do with this, and if it’s in a bad shape, I don’t think you should edit on Wikipedia until it’s better. There’s been multiple explanations about your policy violations. Nobody is framing you, all our claims about you are valid and true, you have absolutely no proof of your innocence in this. You instigated the edit war, just to clarify. Not everyone is going to be on your side, some people have different views from you, and some actually follow our policies and guidelines correctly. Either take responsibility for YOUR actions or face the consequences. No excuses, no shifting the blame on other users, none of that crap you’ve been doing, just admit you’re wrong. It’s not so hard to do. This is the last time I will tell you about this. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I support a week to 2 week ban on this user. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think he should be indeffed, his behavior clearly indicates there is no intention of ever changing. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 01:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After observation, I agree, he’s been given too many chances. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See the further report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where the reported user showed no intention of accepting, let alone fixing, any of their wrongdoings brought forth to them by multiple editors and administrators. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  05:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out there's a discussion (Talk:2019 in American television) attempting to resolve the reason for the latest edit war. It wasn't listed in the original report. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Simmerdon3448 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at 2019 in American television unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Abluegiant reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: due to poor quality of edit not on article talk page, but explained through warnings on user talk and pointers to relevant policies:.

Comments:

User is not responsive on user talk. They sent me an email User requested on my and their user talk page that I should "refute the math as being wrong." I already had pointed yesterday to policies wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:4AF2:9100:809E:4892:99DC:1452 reported by User:Mark Schierbecker (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * – 72 hours to Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:4AF2:9100:0:0:0:0/64. This is an IP-hopping warrior who seems to have arrived on Wikipedia to push a point of view: "..Or are you just a brainwashed nationalistic revisionist-history americunt?". EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Россиянин2019 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

more throughout the week User talk:Россиянин2019
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Significance of Lend-Lease */ Let be so."
 * 2)  "/* Significance of Lend-Lease */ Please stop your actions."
 * 3)  "/* Significance of Lend-Lease */ Summary"
 * 4)  "/* Significance of Lend-Lease */"
 * 1)  "/* Significance of Lend-Lease */"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Lend-Lease
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

We have other reverts on other days and we also seem to have a sock puppet. Moxy 🍁 16:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

. You missed a revert — 3RR was breached, at the very least. El_C 16:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:TYSK reported by User:YborCityJohn (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920595871
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920596104
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920597391
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920689745
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920691253
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Domains&oldid=920738416

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I informed User:TYSK that he shouldn't replace active referenced links in Google Domains with ones that are non-english on an English Wikipedia page and that if the references no longer worked he should have either used notification and/or provide an archived link from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, their response was that the links were outdated and were replaced with ones in German, I again informed him that it is not proper to use non-english references on English Wikipedia but he again reverted my edits in violation of the 3RR rule. The fact is that the references worked and under Wikipedia rules should not be removed. Additionally, on my talk page in the Edit Summary they accused me of being a vandal.

Comments:

. Please start using the article talk page, both of you. El_C 16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to rollback the page so that the original English references are used, it still shows the German references which as previously discussed should not be used. YborCityJohn (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the result. The article was no longer up to date and I brought it up to date, so new sources were needed. The old sources would not have been related to the new information. But CityJohn doesnt understand this.--TYSK (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Thesabrerattler reported by User:Mitchellhobbs (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I edited on Thesabrerattler talk page explaining the article's talk page on the issue the editor is having here. I left a 3rr template warning here. User:UW Dawgs left a 3rr template warning here. I also received this edit here on my talk page. ~mitch~ (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a SPI as well. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing reported by User:bennyaha (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Hafner&diff=920398958&oldid=920332847 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Hafner&diff=920827737&oldid=920827101

Comments:

I created this page a while about a week ago Claire Hafner. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing starts making edits removing half of the citations of the page, removing notable information and and reverting edits multiple times. We are now in an editing war.--Bennyaha (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits corrected errors that contradict WP:BOXING/MOS: Notable wins or opponents should not be included in the lead section, as that does not represent a concise overview of the article; it does not present a neutral point of view; and there is no objective way to determine what makes a victory notable; Also states only top ten rankins from The Ring, ESPN, TBRB and BoxRec to be mentioned in lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk • contribs) 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:bennyaha also seems to think because New Zealand use the dmy format, it should also be used on a page for an American-Canadian individual, instead of mdy, as is standard in America and most common for English speaking Canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:101.176.22.6 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): Discuss on talk (TW))
 * 2)  (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): New content requires consensus. get it prior to changing the article again. (TW))
 * 3)  (Reverted 1 edit by 101.176.22.6 (talk): Yup. gain consensus. that's how it works. (TW))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (→‎Discussion on 12 October 2019 edits)

Comments:

Won't discuss consensus. This was a snarky comment to me, it's like Yup, I keep undoing your edits for my own gain, that's how it works. I did say to John that London was unsourced but tells me New content requires consensus. No word as of later 101.176.22.6 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

. You need four not three reverts to violate 3RR, IP. Although the onus is on you to gain consensus for the edit which you are introducing — John, you also have an obligation to provide a citation for an unsourced item that you are restoring. El_C 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep that *4*th revert in check for next time El_C. 101.176.22.6 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Doublehelixguy reported by User:BigDwiki (Result: no violation OP blocked for one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Remove personal references in violation of WP:BLP, added pertinent information regarding the services provided by the referenced HVAC contractor as the issues were mentioned bu no clarification on what the final outcome of the service or present condition is."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 920903542 by due to inaccuracies and violations of WP:RS BigDwiki (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 919989092 by BigDwiki (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Comments on October 2019 editing dispute */  re"
 * 2)   "/* Comments on October 2019 editing dispute */  re"


 * Comments:

User continues to violate 3RR while an active discussion is ongoing on the talk page. BigDwiki (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

. Only three reverts, by each user — you need four to violate 3RR. And the user reported is invoking the BLP exemption, anyway. El_C 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

. That 4th revert on the OP's part resulted in them having exceeded 3RR. El_C 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:183.90.37.89 reported by User:McSly (Result: blocked/sprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

A couple more reverts since I started filing the report
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edit warring by IP who doesn't want the article to be changed to a redirect as it is treating the same subject as the redirect target McSly (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Material being repeatedly inserted is basically promotional.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  03:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

. Latest IP also blocked. El_C 16:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sha8ao reported by User:General Ization (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 921057563 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 921043849 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 921056142 by AntonSamuel (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

. El_C 16:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Editor subsequently requested and received rename to . Documenting here for future reference. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the userlinks template for their new account name: . EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Haxonek (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

My undo's
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has also been previous attempts to discuss this, with people generally supporting adding references to points-based immigration to the article. 

Comments:

I think it's important to note that this user has a long history of trying to drive a narrative judging by their talk page []. They regularly ignore the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page as well, calling a link to a WSJ letter from a Senator a "sh*t source" and according to other users they've removed sources to Fox news and other reliable sources.Haxonek (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a paywalled opinion piece, not an RS. They are primary sources and ones with a clear point of view. And you have reverted three times as well. I suggest dropping it. ST47 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – So far neither party has broken WP:3RR. Please use the talk page to resolve any issues still in dispute. If you want to characterize this bill, it is better to find third-party sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: Self-reverted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has violated 1RR, and even though I explained him with detail the 1RR violation he believes he has made no violation. KasimMejia (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to self-revert, but the filer refused to explain what exactly his edit I reverted in diff #2. There was a lot of editing on the page, since this is a current event. I am also not sure that my edit #1 was revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you reverted me or somebody else, you cannot make two reverts under 24 hours according to 1RR. In this case both your reverts were mine, and I shared both of my edits and both your reverts at your talk page. Even though I am not required to since any revert more than 1 under 24 hours violates 1RR. KasimMejia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User self reverted, thanks. And hope we don't have to do this next time and can solve it quicker. KasimMejia (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's unclear here. Please self-revert while you still have that option. El_C 18:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for self-reverting, My_very_best_wishes. El_C 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Incnis Mrsi reported by User:Leitmotiv (Result: warned/protected)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, ,

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

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

Comments:

I began a tautological edit of "Underground tunnel" amongst other tautological edits. Along the way I learned some things, however out of the blue, Incnis Mrsi interjected himself in a conversation I was having about rollercoasters tunnels, suggesting I had an "agenda" and assuming in bad faith that I was somehow a "stalker". Incnis Mrsi, quickly wikihounded me on three unrelated articles (listed above). They reverted three of my edits without supplying a reason, only linking back to my rollercoaster talk page discussion. I reverted after reviewing each of his reverts and determined my edits were perfectly fine. Incnis Mrsi then supplied two sources for two of the articles. I reviewed the articles and they made no specific mention as claimed, so I reverted. Another revert followed from Incnis Mrsi, stating no reason other than to stop edit warring. I would like to point out that the language used was incendiary as noted by a previous discussion that [led to a 1-month blocking] a little over a month ago Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why are my personal comments being edited out by the accused, and not by a third-party admin? I may be ignorant on the matter, but I'd enjoy an answer. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ? (see above) Leitmotiv (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO it would be an unnecessary strain for “a third-party admin” to inquire whether was one Incnis_Mrsi ever banned on Wikimedia sites. A random remark with a misspelled name in it, of course, is not a proof of such an event. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you expect me to say, Leitmotiv. It seems that Incnis Mrsi felt your inaccurate statement constituted an attack and opted to remove it. Then, they decided to supplant it with the correct information. Not much more to say beyond that summary. Why was it not removed by someone else (admin or otherwise)? Probably because no one really noticed the mistake aside from the user whom the comment was about. Whether it ought to have been unilaterally redacted or simply pointed out to you is somewhat moot at this point. I wouldn't expend any further energy on this front, at any case. El_C 20:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That was me that put the correct info in there. Thanks for responding. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

— . Reported user has exceeded 3RR (by about an hour), but since discussion is taking place on the article talk page, I'll err on the side of leniency. But Incnis Mrsi is strongly cautioned against edit warring and especially to the point where 3RR is breached. Any further violations would result in a block whose length will be especially extended. El_C 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Leitmotiv also exceeded 3RR: . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am unable to tell what the first edit is a revert of. El_C 20:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was unaware about the loophole in the policy. It is a pity that it doesn’t equate run-by pushing like  to making reverts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no loophole — four reverts need to be established to have taken place within 24 hours. It is the same as it always has been. As for underground tunnel, if you disagree with the user's mass changes, you are free to revert them (though an attempt at discussion would probably be due). El_C 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

is it normal that the user posts to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard (not AN/I)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to view AN and ANI as mostly interchangeable for these type of reports. El_C 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:217.88.75.153 reported by User:slatersteven (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

No attempt has been made by any party to revolves this on the articles talk page there is a thread at [], and (as you can see) at their talk page. Problem is they are half correct. In that no attempt has been made to justify the addition at the article talk page (I have made some attempt at their talk page) But this is still not a justification for reverting three separate editors a total of 5 times.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw, whilst they did make 4 reverts, the last edit I linked to was not a revert. As I made a cock up I feel this should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC).

Now it is three users, 5 times [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That happens when some users do not wait an adequate time for others (here: me) to finish their edits. What shall I do then? Discard my edits alltogether? I won't. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. ST47 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:JeBonSer reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding a related article at "See also" section. An article which is a common tactic done by the secret agencies to the Targeted Individuals (TI)"


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

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

If I had mistaken in: but the following diffs are reasonable:
 * Comments:
 * 1)  "" and;
 * 1)  "" and;
 * 2)  "Adding a related article at "See also" section. An article which is a common tactic done by the secret agencies to the Targeted Individuals (TI)"

COINTELPRO is a relevant to the article and it is reasonable to be included this on the "See also" section on the Electronic harassment article.  Je Bon Ser  (talk &#124; sign) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. The user responded here in an unclear way, but I do not perceive any agreement to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Pmffl reported by User:2605:6000:E948:C100:3996:7073:1DC:46EF (Result: No violation; stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&oldid=912211939

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&diff=916214238&oldid=915756701
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Browser_engine&diff=921223052&oldid=920646773

Comments:

I'm raising a concern about edit warring on the browser engine article. This report does not concern a 3RR violation.

The only comments regarding the decision to revert are "Was better overall" and "No, you made it worse". —2605:6000:E948:C100:3996:7073:1DC:46EF (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation and stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mark Schierbecker reported by User:Knowledgekid87 (Result: No violation)
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: (Reverted )

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

Comments:

Argument seems to stem over the "notavote" template that is added to deletion discussions, I am not sure what Mark meant by not adding templates to regulars as this is usually in response to talk page warnings. Mark calling the template "condescending" seems to me like he has an issue with the template? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you count? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see three to me, your revert of the warning indicates that you have no desire to work this out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I and only I control my talk page. But please continue to make up rules as you go along. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but dialogue is preferred as I was the one to take the lead rather than revert your edit again and prolonging the edit war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming the moral high ground because you slapped a boilerplate warning on my talk page and then falsely reported me at WP:AN/3? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

. Three reverts not exceeded. But maybe we should rename the 3 revert rule as the 4 revert rule, for people who don't bother reading the policy page! El_C 01:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to add that template in the first place? notavote is very obviously not a "standard template". It is only ever used in canvassing situations, when canvassed users (usually SPAs) start flooding a discussion thinking they can influence it, not understanding that their opinion has to be policy-based to count for anything. The template documentation even says "Please do not place this template preemptively. Participants of discussions are usually aware of how consensus is established and don't need a reminder. Only use this template when there is some indication that inexperienced editors were canvassed to this discussion." I don't see how the very specific message in that template can even be thought to apply in any other circumstances. So, it's really puzzling as to why you would be adding it in this context. Bickering about whether WP:DTR applies to non-user talk pages is irrelevant, because the underlying issue is that there are no apparent canvassed newbies for the template to apply to, so you appear to be applying it for either no reason at all, or being condescending to the experienced users who are participating in that discussion (none of whom are "voting" anyway). Sure you both edit warred over it, but it's hard to overlook the fact that the edit war was over an inappropriate template, which was being rightfully removed. Even by the most AGF interpretation, you were still in the wrong simply because the template is not applicable in this situation, and you gave no reason whatsoever that it would be. I genuinely can't comprehend why you thought, even if we decided to action the edit war, that we would sanction Mark but vindicate you. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The essay also states "Take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and just move on.", I stand by my reasoning that it was a huge issue over nothing. There is also the Wikipedia way of not reverting even if you feel you are right, but taking the issue to a discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, WP is not about being right, and it is not about feelings (your even if you feel you are right). If you wanted to take the issue to a discussion then that is what talk pages are for, as well as the template dubious-discuss. In any event once you posted the template you made your point, when he removed he acknowledged your point. There is no reason to revert or continuously post a template which by it's own discussion is of questionable value, and bringing this to the attention of ANI would be an embarrassment, if it  were I.Oldperson (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:隐世高人 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: 24 hours one week)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:隐世高人

Comments:

While I am using the exemption of the 3RR rule to explain my own reverts, ("Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", since Cut and paste moves are not allowed as per policy), I attempted to explain to the editor, first in an edit summary, then on their talk page, how this is not allowed, and what process they must follow, but the editor refused to engage. Might be a language barrier issue.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * block increased to one week due to block evasion. El_C 15:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tibbidoe reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "https://nfltraderumors.co/redskins-sign-rb-josh-ferguson-to-practice-squad/"
 * 2)  "https://www.redskins.com/team/players-roster/, https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player/8743/jehu-chesson, https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/2001872/jehu-chesson"
 * 3)  "Chesson is on IR (can't be on PS and IR at the same time). The person who keeps changing it back clearly doesn't understand."
 * 1)  "Chesson is on IR (can't be on PS and IR at the same time). The person who keeps changing it back clearly doesn't understand."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Chesson */ new section"
 * 2)   "re"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Washington Redskins roster. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* October 2019 */ re"

See user's talk page.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See also previous discussion at User talk:Dissident93 discussing same issue regarding official roster designation with another editor that I tried referring Tibbidoe to.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:KingofGangsters (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop edit-warring! Obviously the "other" meanings are why we have a disam page. Any more  disruptive editing, & that ANI process will be revived"
 * 2)  "more misleading"


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


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


 * Comments:

I made a couple of edits to a page, and instead of telling me how I could fix them, the user simply reverted aggressively, and ironically accused me of edit warring, though 3rr was not breached. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a continuation of The original ANI section, now archived, where KingofGangsters, then using a different name (User:SuperWikiLover223), having started the section, dodged the boomerang block heading his way by "retiring". In fact, his disappearance lasted about 30 hours, since when, as User:KingofGangsters he has been pretty active. One constant in his editing has been to attack, and try to remove links to, Machiavellianism (politics), which he never liked, and tried to have deleted at Afd ([|a complete flop].  He has been going throgh its "what links here", and that of Machiavellianism (disambiguation), removing links to them, with a variety of contradictory justifications, and edit-warring over them. Now this on my talk page, and this here. Over a month ago (as recorded at User_talk:Liz) he sent me an abusive email ("SuperWikiLover223‬ sent you an email. You are a grade A asshole, John." 15 Sept.), for which he did apologise.  Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one's talking about the AFD mate. This is just a poor justification of carelessly reverting on articles where I edit, just because of your gripe with me. Not to mention the pusillanimous mentioning of my name on the talk pages of admins who have favored you. KingofGangsters (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep digging that hole. He also, 2 days ago prodded for deletion Tinsel print, an article I created in 2006 (and mention on my user-page), presumably just to see if my watchlist goes that far back. It does. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Both editors are reminded to comment on content rather than contributors, especially in edit summaries. – bradv  🍁  00:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ebizur reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 921699929 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Quit using double parentheses just so you can add redundant blather to this page. Changing text of the article to reflect Supplementary Table 1 of the ultimate source of the data, in which the sample is labeled as Population=Riang (RIA), Geographical Region=North-east (i.e. Northeast India)."
 * 3)  "If someone is an absolute moron, like yourself, then s/he/it does not need to be using Wikipedia in a futile attempt to edify her/him/itself. Quit idly meddling in other people's work without contributing anything of substance."
 * 4)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"
 * 5)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 921569049 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 921417487 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) Removing unsightly and redundant indication of country (Tripura is unambiguously the name of a constituent state of India)."
 * 8)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"
 * 9)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"
 * 1)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"
 * 2)  "/* O-M122 (O2) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tripura is not that well known */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Tripura is not that well known */"
 * 3)   "/* Tripura is not that well known */"


 * Comments:


 * Removal of sourced content by User:Ebizur from the article Haplogroup O-M175. See here. The source clearly mentions "India (Tripura)", but the user is hellbent on removing it, despite the fact that other regions have both the country name and the state/region name mentioned. As an example from the article, I've re-interted "India" in the list text, O-F14422* India (Tripura (Riang)),[1] Myanmar (Yangon). since mentioning "Tripura" alone with a country Myanmar would not be in same footing.
 * Secondly, the user is Harassing me (using the term "moron") and is showing typical WP:OWN characteristics. See . Despite I opened up a discussion in the article talk. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Harassment continues. Now calls me an "Ugly Troll". See, . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Both users have been edit-warring, but I have blocked Ebizur for 24h for the personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:The EditorCNN reported by User:Harshil169 (Result: soft block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Detailed information of another nobel laureate added."
 * 2)  "Detailed information of another nobel laureate added."
 * 3)  "Detailed information of another nobel laureate added."
 * 4)  "Detailed information of the nobel laureate added."
 * 5)  "NOBEL LAUREATE ADDED"
 * 6)  "NOBEL LAUREATE ADDED"
 * 1)  "NOBEL LAUREATE ADDED"
 * 1)  "NOBEL LAUREATE ADDED"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User is adding name of Abhishek Mukherjee as Nobel laureate and using Wikipedia as soapbox to mislead people in both pages namely List of people from Kolkata and List of Bengali Nobel laureates after repeatedly warnings. After removal of contents, he still restores the material. He has no other contributions other than this. Also, he registered another account namely User:Nobel organisation to support in this edit warring. It is confirmed through SPI investigation and I was guided to report through this channel.  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 15:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * just a note that I have soft blocked that account for a username violation (I've yet to examine this report, however). El_C 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

. Also sprotected. El_C 17:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:108.168.14.239, User:76.70.27.63 and User:72.139.52.226 reported by User:Marnevell (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and other IP addresses

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919161569

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919301802
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=919744253
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=920777689
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Woodworth_(politician)&oldid=921486425

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] ... (I'm not sure what to put here? I made comments on the user pages, see below.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Posts were made on User_talk:76.70.27.63 and on []. No post yet made on [[User_talk:72.139.52.226] since that was the most recent IP.

Comments:

This one appears to be coming from multiple IP addresses -- not registered users -- all performing the same action. By the looks of things, it's a campaign team trying to sanitize their candidate's page. Not sure if it's one person using a work computer / a mobile phone, or if it's multiple people from the same campaign. I'm not sure if I'm reporting this properly -- maybe locking the page to edits only from registered users would be the right course of action here? Also, please let me know if I've done anything wrong with this report, this is my first time :) Marnevell (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. Similar edits are coming from multiple IPs. This looks to be either sock or meat-puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Guarapiranga (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Similar content reverted on another page:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A cursory search for this user on these talk pages indicates this is not the first transgression. The user seems to have a very strict agenda to defend regarding this topic, continually imperilling WP's NPOV. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No evidence of a breech of 3RR. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I can personally attest to these violations. @Alexbrn has in the past prevented my efforts to improve. The reverts are baseless and represent an effort to prevent new / updated information being added to the linked WP article. See:

Hotpass105 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Having a look at his talk history it seems evident it's quite a habit of his. He's repeatedly engaged in edit wars with other editors:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

But gets it most right, I think: it's a pattern of edit warring. — Guarapiranga (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What it is, is a "pattern" of being taken to a AN3 for bogus reasons mostly by POV-warriors like yourself, most of whom have been blocked/banned since. I have never been blocked a a result of any of these reports (because, as I say, they are bogus like yours: trying to pass off one of 's reverts as mine is naughty). Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now is not only edit warring on the reported page, but has started an all-out campaign across multiple pages:
 * Talk:Circumcision
 * Talk:Genital modification and mutilation‎
 * WT:MED
 * It is clear he has a POV on this topic, and that he is determined to impose it on Wikipedia by whatever means. Guarapiranga (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The mighty tide of consensus will sweep us along and result, I am sure, with a good outcome for the encyclopedia in a more WP:PAG-compliant manner than what we started with. Posting here when you've just tripped over 4RR at List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting is ... brave. Alexbrn (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just an external comment, but I remark that you are both discussing (here and on the WikiProject Med and on the talk page of the entry), that's very encouraging and this request I think is needless --Signimu (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ryder Haron reported by User:Shaidar cuebiyar (Result: both 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . I count 9 reverts by (if you count their first two-edit sequence today as a revert) and 9 by .  Furthermore, Shaidar cuebiyar did not notify the other party of this report despite the instructions to this page.  As a new user, there is some excuse for you not being familiar with the policies against edit warring, but your edits were still disruptive, hence the block from editing.  Please take the time to put together a sensible argument as to why these changes should be made, so other editors can discuss with you.   You, however, have no such excuse, as a 10+ year veteran of this community. Please avoid this behavior in the future. –Darkwind (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Bonthefox3 reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I informed the user on his talk page about the violation of 1RR. User said he doesn't want it removed and then reverted for a 3rd time after warning. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, don't do that, don't block me. Bonthefox3 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can self revert your edit here like requested at your talk page and not be blocked. You violated 1RR and made yet another revert after warning you about it. KasimMejia (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Bonthefox3. I think that was a violation. Self-revert if you can. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 20:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Forza2020 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 921960732 by Calton (talk) removed as per WP:Biographies of Living Persons; Wikipedia is not a blog or tabloid to push defamatory material about a living person, who has denied such claims; either reword such descriptions from unreliable sources, or remove them. Regards."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 921958050 by Grayfell (talk) no it isn't, as per WP"Biographies of Lving Persons; this is removal of unreliable sources which are defamatory to a living person who has never described herself with such a label, which is grounds for lawsuit. Please remove immediately, as the sources given are potentially facing lawsuits for defamation.."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 921957157 by Aoi (talk) please read WP:Biography of Living Persons - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.""
 * 4)  "this has been removed as per WP:Biography of Living Persons - these sources are unreliable, questionable, and also defamatory towards a living person, which is grounds for lawsuit in the United States. Such descriptions, denied by this person, need to be removed unless a source of this person declaring such is found."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 921873954 by Aoi (talk) there are none listed stating she is a supremacist, or of her admitting such; until you can provide such a reliable source, this is not in line with WP on biographies of living persons"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 921873411 by Slatersteven (talk) that source has nothing to do with this person in this article; please provide a source specifically about Lokteff of her admitting she is a supremacist"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (this is a prior 3RR warning on a dispute on an unrelated article; however, I'm adding it here to show that they were aware of the 3RR before their first reversion).


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


 * Comments:

User has continued to edit war, despite being told on their talk page by a sysop that their assertion that their reversions are exempt under the BLP exception to the 3RR rule is incorrect. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * - I've gone ahead and blocked not only on grounds of 3rr (which would have been temporary) but also WP:NLT, as they won't stop saying "slander" with a clear intention of creating a chilling effect. Unless and until they accept and admit that they can't do that, they don't need to be editing.  SLPC is a reliable source, Wikilawyering be damned.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sisuvia reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , See personal attacks here: , Comments:

This user has no civility and is apparently here to attack other users. He/she would rather edit-war than engaging positively with other users and contribute to the articles. He has personally attacked me at least twice in the Talk page and revert edit summaries, turning every discussion about the content to a personal attack. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

. Although your link to the 1RR warning represents no such thing. El_C 07:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: no violation/withdrawn)
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:

3 days ago user was warned but self reverted at the noticeboard for violating 1RR at the same article. Also it was discussed at his talk page. Yet again after 3 days another violation seems to have taken place where there are 2 reverts under 24 hours. KasimMejia (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Those are obviously consecutive edits so count as 1RR and this is not a violation. User:KasimMejia was informed of the fact that consecutive edits do not count as separate reverts here, but chose to file this report anyway, knowing full well that this was NOT a violation.  Volunteer Marek   13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You did inform me of it, yet I filed it anyway because I don't know if that is an actual rule or not since you didn't link me a rule page. I also don't know whether you're an administrator or not. KasimMejia (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly it isn't relevant if Volunteer Marek is an admin. They already pointed out to you no violation had occurred and you disregarded that to post a spurious complaint. Frankly you'd be well advised to withdraw this report lest you face a trip to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether that user was correct about no violation indeed taking place so I had to ask an Admin, but OK I'll delete it since assuming you are an admin. Do I just delete the section to withdraw it or do I have to do something else to withdraw it? KasimMejia (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a single edit (three sequential edits) I made on this page during last three days. Is it even a revert? Yes, this is a removal of content, but a revert of which edit, exactly? As a note of order, I did not make any violation even during the previous report about me by KasimMejia. I self-reverted just to save some time and nerves. Note that KasimMejia issued 1RR warnings to at least six different users and me:, ,,,,. I suspect most of them were not 1RR violations. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All those users who I issued the warning self reverted because they had indeed made a violation. Also you did so too, maybe not with this edit since its considered consecutive but 3 days ago. And the admin had to warn you to self revert because you didn't believe when I told you about your violation. [] KasimMejia (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Here is my advice. For each alleged revert, you should provide 2 diffs: (a) the alleged revert itself, and (b) the edit by someone else that has been reverted . You refused to provide (b) when I asked you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't to understand what a "revert" is. I told you this in your violation 3 days ago too but you didn't believe until the admin warned you. A revert is removal of any material from the article wholly or in part. If you still don't understand you should read WP:WAR in detail. KasimMejia (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the revert is NOT "removal of any material from the article". You are mistaken. You had to ask one of admins on their talk page what revert is, instead of threatening multiple users to report them to this noticeboard. notifying multiple users about their "violations". My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not ask any admin on their talk page what a revert is and I didn't threaten any user. I notified them about 1RR violation which is required for users to do before filing a violation. In fact you telling me that I "threatened" users is a violation of WP:GF. KasimMejia (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone already explained you 6 days ago that several consecutive edits count as one edit . Why did you make this report? My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw the notice since the user made no violation according to the administrator. KasimMejia (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Indeed, continuous reverts are not counted disparately. Just out of curiosity, when you say according to the administrator — which admin were you referring to? El_C 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe either Simonm223 or Volunteer Marek is an administrator, might be wrong though. KasimMejia (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are — they are not. El_C 07:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonk111 reported by User:Harshil169 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 922014724 by Harshil169 (talk) The identity, admission of the killers, police stating what the prima facie motive is, this is not visible anywhere"
 * 2)  ""Muhammad was the first homosexual", That is not a commentary, but a mocking statement"
 * 3)  "/* Comments on sexuality of Muhammad */ Anyone who read his comment against Muhammad knows that it was an insult in retort to the insult against RSS."
 * 4)  "/* Insults against Muhammad */"
 * 1)  "/* Insults against Muhammad */"


 * Warnings on Edit-warring:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kamlesh Tiwari. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kamlesh Tiwari . (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Please don’t add your own commentary  */ new section"


 * Comments:

User is not adhering WP:NPOV, WP:OR, not engaging in the Dispute resolution as opened on talk page and giving authoritarian statement like It was not commentary, just an insult. Kamlesh Tiwari referred Muhammad as first homosexual and none of the reliable sources cited in the article are supporting fact that it was insult but the user is still making changes in the article and changing 'Comments on sexuality of Muhammad' to 'Insult of Muhammad'.
 * And here consensus was built up and as per the policy WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, name of accused should not be taken and thus, I removed my own content on the suggestion of one editor but this user reinstated it.
 * Issues on talk page are already open (such as why name of suspects were taken, don't add your own commentary) and user is not involving in the consensus building and adding the content without consensus and citing policy.  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 11:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 reverts me for trivial reasons. Since when do I have to cite a source for saying an insult is an insult? Also about the second part, right now he says names of the accused should not be taken. It was that what I added was already there. Harshil has changed his reason all of a sudden. Tonk111 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohh well, according to you insult is insult and no source is required. I wasn't aware that wikipedia allows to post your opinion as it is on the article. I hope you had read WP:OPINION before commenting here. To the respectable Admin who will read this, you can easily understand how this user is doing disruptive doing without properly understanding Wikipedia's policies and adding the version which is favorable to them. -- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything against common sense. I have given a source on the talk page, if you don't agree I'll give more. You wrongly accuse me of re-posting the same content, then change it to not naming the accused. Tonk111 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing but you’re just contradicting yourself here. What you’ve cited was opinion of ABHM that it was ‘disrespectful’ and ‘deteriorating’. That doesn’t mean it becomes insult. It’s opinion of ABHM, not fact and it is covered in the section very well. Admin can easily understand that user isn’t able to differentiate between opinion and fact and was pushing his POV on the article by doing edit war and not engaging in dispute resolution. User is intractable and not even adhering third opinion given by editor on talk page. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 12:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just ABHM, but the news itself called it a insult, "Right-wing outfit Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM), whose working president Kamlesh Tiwari had insulted Prophet Muhammad" Please read the first line in the source I gave. And what POV intactrability you talk about? I did remove the names of the accused when you demanded. Tonk111 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

. Three reverts are allowed, so no violation on the 3RR end. Please continue to discuss on the article talk page. That having been said, Tonk111, some of your edits are highly problematic for a recently deceased person — you should be aware that you are a risking an imminent topic ban (or at the very least, an article ban), or other discretionary sanctions, if these violations were to persist. El_C 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:5.116.17.23, User:5.116.143.209, User:5.115.214.27 reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: sprotected)
Page:

User being reported:, ,

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=922013668&oldid=922012740

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=921902303&oldid=921863210
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=920925562&oldid=920921564
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=920909584&oldid=919990033
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=914485026&oldid=913183397

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

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

Comments:

Please lock the page Merkit to edits only from registered users because of Edit warring.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Freeknowledgecreator reported by User:Bueller 007 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&oldid=891758300

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921940526&oldid=921939709
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921941132&oldid=921940747
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921941453&oldid=921941413

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

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

Comments:

The user who reported me here made an unconstructive change at the article, seems to be annoyed that it got reverted, and is neither more nor less guilty of edit warring than I am. He made things worse by gratuitously and pointlessly insulting me here and is not really in a position to be complaining about my behavior. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The change was not unconstructive; it was changing the citation style to a more standard one that is used throughout all of Wikipedia. You reverted without explanation, your next reversion came rudely as a condescending ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY LIKE THIS, and your third reversion again came without explanation. See WP:OWNER.  This appears to be an obvious case of someone reverting any changes to an article that they feel that they "own".  Bueller 007 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The place for this discussion is the article's talk page. The unconstructive change I was referring to was your removal of EBSCO attribution. There was absolutely no reason for that and I emphatically do not agree to it. I have no objection to changing the citation style. Also, for future reference, it is really not appropriate to report someone for edit warring because you don't like their edit summaries. The noticeboard is for serious violations of the edit warring rules; it is not a place to report routine disputes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Restored your citation changes here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

. Only three reverts are listed, you need four to violate 3RR. I suggest you both tone it down and take it to the article talk page. El_C 16:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * sorry, I overlooked the last comment. This seems resolved as Freeknowledgecreator has self-reverted. El_C 16:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BawinV reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user, who is probably a sockpuppet, has been disrupting many Taylor Swift-related articles with POINTism. For Lover they are set on including that it is her highest Metacritic score (congratulations...) despite the fact that it is not leadworthy or particularly important material. After the 3rd undoing I am now reporting. Trillfendi (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not enough reverts for a violation. Also, I see no indication that you warned the editor or that you discussed the issue on the article Talk page. Finally, do not accuse another editor of socking. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that a user is socking, take it to SPI. Your allegation is a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:184.146.207.178 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Revival Attempts */"
 * 2)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Revival Attempts */"
 * 2)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"
 * 1)  "/* Production */"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * – bradv  🍁  04:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Wisefroggy reported by User:Moxy (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert during this filling.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 922186419 by Moxy (talk)  No reason for undo. No explanation given."
 * 3)  "Re-added quote from MP, which is well sourced - there is no evidence it is "blatantly false""
 * 4)  "Re-added description of Blackface video.  It is not opinion; it is straight from the sources.  Whitewashing is not appropriate"
 * 5)  "added {failed verification} and {CN}"
 * 6)  "/* Publication University of Laval: assessment of Trudeau's campaign promises */  added {failed verification} - almost this entire section is {FV}"
 * 7)  "/* 2019 federal election */ Re-added one-sentence description of contents of video, as per talk page consensus"
 * 1)  "/* 2019 federal election */ Re-added one-sentence description of contents of video, as per talk page consensus"

IN MY DEFENSE: these are all reasonable edits; MOST concern {WP:CN} and {failed verification} - In particular:  content said a politician "kept 92 percent of pledges" - Absolutely amazing!!!! Oops, that is not in the sources given. So I add {citation needed} and {failed verification} (please click above links to see). Yet my accuser user:Moxy simply deletes the {CN} and {FV} tags. Why would one delete tags??
 * Talk:Justin Trudeau.-- Moxy 🍁 16:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one (of many)example of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018]) Wisefroggy (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup was redone Justin Trudeau -- Moxy 🍁 16:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Aware of 3RR].
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Trudeau&diff=prev&oldid=921670696 editor ful
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Content on blackface */"


 * Comments:

Single-purpose account just adding the same thing over and over. Not here to build the project....just here to deface a bio. Moxy 🍁 15:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a single-purpose account - I have contributions to dozens of articles, spanning many years. See my contribs.

SPA should indeed be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a single-purpose account - I have contributions to dozens of articles, spanning many years. See my contribs.


 * – bradv  🍁  15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IN MY DEFENSE: Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one, of many, examples of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018])  Wisefroggy (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Wisefroggy (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's not a defense. You were edit warring here, and I left you a warning on your talk page. If you continue you will be blocked. – bradv  🍁  15:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's quite obvious. You keep edit warring, you get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IN MY DEFENSE: these are all reasonable edits (click them); MOST concern {WP:CN} and {failed verification} - In particular:  content said a politician "kept 92 percent of pledges" - Absolutely amazing!!!! Oops, that is not in the sources given. So I add {citation needed} and {failed verification} (please click above links to see). Yet my accuser user:Moxy simply deletes the {CN} and {FV} tags. Why would one delete tags?? Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one (of many)example of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018]) Wisefroggy (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup was redone Justin Trudeau -- Moxy 🍁 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WHY are you re-posting the same thing? This is getting annoying, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:DillonTCwiki reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:07 19 October
 * 2) 15:15 19 October
 * 3) 17:01 19 October
 * 4) 17:08 19 October
 * 5) 17:51 19 October
 * 6) 16:38 20 October
 * 7) 18:49 20 October
 * 8) 12:58 21 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is persisting in re-inserting an edit despite being reverted four different editors now, and receiving warnings from three, including one explicitly warning of 3RR breach. No engagment on Talk. Enough is enough. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User:46.208.236.175 reported by User:CocoricoPolynesien (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported: (same person)

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) for Gambier Islands
 * 2) for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
 * 3) for The Thing (1982 film)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  for Gambier Islands
 * 2)  for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
 * 3)  for  List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
 * 4)  for The Thing (1982 film)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) for Gambier Islands
 * 2) for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
 * 3) for The Thing (1982 film)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) for Gambier Islands
 * 2) for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
 * 3) for The Thing (1982 film)

Comments:

Repeated blanking of sections (assuming good faith firstly, then it appeared vandalism but seems to be more not liking being reverted), doesn't seek consensus, refuse discussion, personnal attacks, doubtful justification of edits (I quote : "dumb, useless, pointless, awful, poor"), breach of policies and edit warring. Used the same behavior with User:Darkwarriorblake. Warned multiple times and blanked the warning without issue resolution. Trying at this very moment to intimidate me on my talk page by criticising my comprehension level and my level of English, as well as my past contributions.

I'm aware I'm may be borderline myself but I consider the behavior of the IP to be absolutely disgusting as it makes personnal attacks and refuses to collaborate with other members of wiki. Regards. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: CocoricoPolynesien whitewashes user_talk and has an extensive record of warring against multiple Wikipedians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection. I have been involved in Treaty of Campo Formio that has been settled and François Lecointre that has been settled.


 * – bradv  🍁  15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was sent there by WP:AIV because of edit warring... And what do I do about the personnal attacks ?
 * The IP user made 4 reverts alone on the 14th at The Thing, and has continued to utilise a brute force approach to editing since. No-one has been hostile towards teh IP that I can see yet they have been openly hostile and/or stubborn regarding their edits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * . The user recently made a 4th revert on List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands. -- Scott Burley (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Apoorva Iyer reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop reverting against Wikipedia guidelines. If you have an issue, write it on the talk page here instead of edit warring."
 * 2)  "I have explained myself repeatedly per Wikipedia guidelines. If you have a good reason as to why his Colombian birth is directly relevant to his notability such that it warrants inclusion in the lead, please discuss on the talk page here."
 * 3)  "Hi! please see your talk page for more information. But Wikipedia is clear in guidelines stated in WP:Ethnicity that place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity are not included in the leads unless directly relevant to notability. This is not the case for the subject, and so I have reverted this edit."
 * 4)  "See WP:Ethnicity. Place of birth, previous nationalities, and/or ethnicity do not belong in the lead."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on John Leguizamo. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (Using Twinkle"


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


 * Comments:
 * – bradv  🍁  00:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The filer has also been blocked for reverting again after this report was created. 3RR works both ways. – bradv  🍁  00:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Yny501 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 922579093 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 922577786 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) undoing on talk pages is highly questionable at best"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 922577786 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) undoing on talk pages is highly questionable at best"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Violation of WP:BLANKING, inexcusable for an editor has edited for 6+ years. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 00:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That appears to only be two reverts, the third dif given does not appear to be a reversion. In addition CaradhrasAiguo has a history of using unfounded Administrators’ noticeboard requests to harass people he is in dispute with, I know because it happened to me and I’ve seen it happen to many since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Horse Eye Jack! In any case, I don't think this is the relevant noticeboard to report me as of now if my behaviour is deemed to be disruptive, and I am pretty confident that the administrators can distinguish two from three. I was honestly tempted to revert again so that my reporter would break the 3RR rule (on 3 already), but that's too petty and doesn't contribute to making Wikipedia more civil. Yny501 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that is expressly permitted, as a matter of policy to remove any comments whatsoever from their own user talk page. It is quite inappropriate for you to edit war to force your own comments to remain on their user page when they are expressly permitted to remove them if they please. See WP:BLANKING. I'm also frankly not sure what you meant when you referred to another user as very 'aiguo' so to speak. ST47 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I understand that policy allows for it, the policy also clearly states that it is preferable to at the very least explain. This user has a long history of cleaning up their talk page (the archives look very different for the record), which is completely fine, but I think that my edits warrant at least a reply, if not an explanation. I have no further desire to edit the talk page if they do not desire it, but I do not think this report helps matters at all. Yny501 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want a response, but they are not required to provide one. The records of their talk page notices remain in their page history, and the fact that they have deleted them is considered equivalent to "acknowledging" them, should you need to rely on them for any future report about their conduct. The fact that you were honestly tempted to game WP:3RR in order to get CaradhrasAiguo blocked for edits that you knew that WP:BLANKING allows them to make is problematic, and had I seen these reverts "live" rather than an hour after the fact, it is you that I would have blocked. Given that you have agreed not to continue to reinstate your comments on their talk page against their wishes, I'm closing this with no action. ST47 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Montysumit reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is a neutral article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 922658493 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)  Me saying Pakistan is a terrorist country doesn't add it as a fact. There is a difference between acquisition and evidence."
 * 3)  "The user Kautilya doesn't give a neutral perspective and this is clearly a propaganda. I urge wiki to verify the paramilitary and the link that it redirects to."
 * 4)  "The RSS is even today criticised as paramilitary force because it uses lathi (stick) but that does not make it an organisation with guns and weapons of destruction. The quotes were used as a cite of criticism to paint India into a terrorist state ruled by fanatics. These changes are necessary. I hope you understand sir. I There are other places in this page where paramilitary comparison are drawn and that is true."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I'm not involved, but there is a discussion at Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh This edit at another article is concerning. I'll give him a DS alert. Twinkle isn't giving me the opportunity to show warnings on this talk page, but he's had several starting yesterday. User talk:Montysumit. Note that I edit this article, so not blocking myself. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User:194.39.218.10 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: 24 hours, both)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 922623235 by Gotitbro (talk) You should have strong negating ground to remove an edit. There are several sources mentioned with an edit and is continuously removed by specific users. This article needs an attention and the vandalism of removal of solid sourced edits by specific users should be stopped. The current vandalising user has been blocked before and now the vandalism is being committed again. You have to be warned."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 922623100 by Gotitbro (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 922497158 by Gotitbro (talk) Vandalism undo"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 922497231 by Gotitbro (talk) Aktuelles Szenario ist anders."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 921653935 by Gotitbro (talk) THE SOURCE IS PRESENT"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 921653935 by Gotitbro (talk) THE SOURCE IS PRESENT"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 921653935 by Gotitbro (talk) THE SOURCE IS PRESENT"


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


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing by IP unwilling to discuss at the ongoing discussion on the Talk page despite being warned. Has already violated 3RR. Gotitbro (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 16:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ibrar007 reported by User:MoonyTheDwarf (Result: Blocked; article protected)

 * 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. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Appears to be associated with the IP editors, assuming the account is an extension of that. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Ibrar007 as VOA and semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Katolophyromai reported by User:WikiEditorial101 (Result: no action, advice given)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this or not, as I've never had to report anyone before. I consider myself a WikiGnome and an Inclusionist. So, ironically, a self-professed Christian editor (who appears to have a personal attachment not only to his articles, but to how he believes this pantheon of ancient Near-Eastern gods should be portrayed) whose article I was cleaning up by relatively minor copyedits such as condensing and refining the prose of the introduction, removing citations from the captions of photos, and correcting minor punctuational and grammatical error, is being paranoid that I am part of a conspiracy to portray these gods in a positive light. I've tried to reason with him, but he's totally uncivil and unwilling to be fair and forthright, twisting the truth about my edits and outright lying about them to the extent that it would take a neutral party to patiently go ever every minor edit to confirm the accuracy of what I'm reporting.

Comments:  User talk:Katolophyromai


 * WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, just so you know, I no longer consider myself a Christian, but an agnostic. It was around fall 2018 or thereabouts that I ceased to really believe in God as anything more than a metaphor. I stopped considering myself a Christian at some point around December of last year or January of this year. In any case, I hardly see how my former religious views would even be relevant to this conversation, since, even when I was religious, neither Enlil nor any of the other Mesopotamian deities was ever part of my worldview.
 * Furthermore, your portrayal of what I have said above is deeply misrepresentative to say the least. I have not consciously "lied" about anything you have said or done, nor have I been uncivil in any way that I am aware of. Furthermore, I never ever said anything at all about you being part of a "conspiracy." I never implied such a thing. You must have egregiously misread something I wrote to come away with that notion. —Katolophyromai (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * from my review of the history of the page, it seems that among many incremental edits each of you has wholesale reverted (completely restored a previous revision) once, so this is escalating but I don't think I'd call it an edit war at this stage. WikiEditorial101, you've started a discussion on Katolophyromai's talk page already (I agree it would be better on the article talk page, but discussion in the wrong place is far better than no discussion at all). I suggest the two of you should continue discussing, and if you find that you're at an impasse then the volunteers at dispute resolution should be able to help. No admin action for now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:2409:4072:310:702D:0:0:BCF:C0A4 reported by User:CentralTime301 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP address has been reverting edits by me (which itself were believed to be vandalism).  CentralTime 301  ( talk , contribs) 11:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * and I don't see any evidence of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting recent poor edits per talk page and WP:BRD"
 * 2)  "Apologetic wording and apologetic rebuttal requires consensus, reverted again per WP:BRD"
 * 3)  "Reverted to last good version"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Portraying innocuous edits of uninvolved editors (restoring standard use of language template adding a link) as the same as those of the editor with which he is in dispute with is peak WP:TE Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo has a history of using unsubstantiated Administrators’ noticeboard requests as a tool of harassment against those they are in disagreement with, I know becasue it happened to me and I have seen to happen to many since. I note that a claim of WP:TE is a joke coming from Aiguo given their extensive history of such editing, an extreme example of which can be found on Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you would take the brief time to check the AN/EW archives and my own editing history in the Wikipedia namespace, you will find that there is only one report for Yny501, in which they came perilously close to a block before being schooled, and the current report. Two reports since your own, hardly constitutes "have seen to happen to many since". Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats seven... Not two. I note that you had appear to have had content disputes with all seven as well. When was the last time you reported a named user and your accusation stuck? I note you have yet to acknowledge what you wrote on Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point as you make a claim of WP:TE worry about the WP:boomerang. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seven edits, two threads / reports. The claim "seen to happen to many since" refers unambiguously to editors. Sort out the difference. And I take it that, per WP:BLANKING, you have acknowledged your numerous factual errors in your summary of the Yny501 report.
 * When was the last time...? Um, the evening before I reported you. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

. Only three reverts listed — you need four to violate 3RR. El_C 17:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Joel B. Lewis and User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Hasteur (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported: ,

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Users are violating WP:TPG Specifically WP:TPO Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning TakuyaMurata made a non-neutral canvassing attempt that was spotted and observed. I called them out on the attempt and had my post removed twice by JBL and once by Taku putting me at 3RR explicitly. As such I request that an uninvolved user restore my warning per the plain text reading of WP:TPO. I further request that an adminstrator take appropriate sanctions against both editors for refactoring others commentary as both editors should know better. Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I am banned from TakuyaMurata's talk page absent procedural filings and as such request an independent user drop the obligatory notice. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall you’re banned from my talkpage. I have added the clarification “(in good faith or not)” that hopefully addresses the concern. —- Taku (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

. Edit warring is not severe enough for sanctions to be considered. But please let go of and move on from this particular edit war. Instead, try to see if there is a dispute resolution request that can help resolve whatver the underlying issues may be. Good luck. El_C 17:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not involved in this dispute, except that I am an active member of the WikiProject Mathematics (WPM) and that this edit war occurs at WT:WPM. It appears that the content of the reverted edit by as nothing to do with the object of the page WT:WPM as consisting only in accusing  of not  assuming good faith of hypothetic editors. In fact Taku's disputed sentence is . This accusation of not assuming good faith is ridiculous, must be considered as a personal attack or as hounding. Therefore, I agree with the removal of Hasteur's edit. By the way, I know that there is a long term conflict between Hasteur and Taku about the use of draft space. I have not a clear opinion on this. What I am sure is that there is nothing wrong with Taku's behaviour ar Wikiproject mathematics, nor with his edits of mathematics articles. On the other hand the only contributions that I remember from Hasteur in Wikiproject Mathematics, consist of polluting the project talk page with their non-mathematical dispute with Taku. Therefore, I support the use of "hounding" in one of the edit sumaries of JBL. D.Lazard (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With no respect (because none was extended to me) I have attempted to engage WP:Mathematics previously only to have no productive action. In fact it was specifically in the case of "Could someone from WP Math do something about these Drafts that are lying around?"  Back in 2016 and 2018.  SO yes, polluting the project talk page trying to get the project to do something about it (being one of the ways to attract attention). However WP:TPO is quite clear that refactoring others talkpage posts (especially over their objection) is not permitted. Wikipedia guidelines trump Wikiproject behavior and individual user behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this: a Wikipedia project can choose to remove a post that it considers to be irrelevant or not productive for the purpose of the project. If some posts at the talkpage are considered to be unproductive, they can be removed by the owners of the talkpage. It’s like removing a post at the talkpage of your user page. In other words, you cannot *force* your posts at some private spaces. —- Taku (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, the removal has to have a consensus among the project members. I’m sure that was the case here. — Taku (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)