Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive398

User:Jamesmiko reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: No violation)
Page: and other NBA, NHL userboxes

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: last stable version, which removes both MOS:ACCESS and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR issues

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:37, 15 April 2019 – restores to his preferred version without using the edit summary
 * 2) 23:04, 28 April 2019 – restores to his preferred version citing "consistency" as his argument
 * 3) 20:53, 28 May 2019 – restores to his preferred version citing "consistency" as his argument
 * 4) 05:52, 24 October 2019 – restores to his preferred version without using the edit summary
 * 5) 02:30, 25 October 2019 – restores to his preferred version, because he clearly does not understand the MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:COLOR) and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR policies

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am reporting Jamesmiko, because he has been edit warring over userboxes' appearance for quite some time. I have standardized all the NBA and NHL userboxes, which is encouraged by MOS, back in 2018, but Jamesmiko pops up once in a while and restores to his preferred versions. For example, the history of the User:UBX/NBA-Clippers (diffs listed in appropriate section) shows what he has been up to. I firstly wrote a message to him in April 2019, and then issued warnings on his talk page in May 2019 and October 2019 for restoring his preferred version of many userboxes' appearances citing MOS:ACCESS as the policy, which he should comply to. However, each time he reverted to his preferred either citing "consistency" or not using the edit summary at all. He ignored the message and both warnings every time and then wrote on my talk page that I could not issue any warnings, because I am not an administrator among other things (administrators should read that message themselves to get a better understanding). This has been going on for too long to leave it alone, because Jamesmiko made it clear in his message on my talk page that he will continue to edit war if his personal taste is not accepted by others. Just looking at his insisted version (this even makes it difficult for me to see some of the text and I am not color blind or visually impaired) makes it clear that it breaks the MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR policies, while my introduced version removes those issues (with the addition of correct color codes and abbreviations). In addition, he tends to use unverified color codes, uses abbreviations that are not used anywhere, and reintroduces non existent categories. I hope administrators will look into this situation with caution and take action or give an advice about the issue. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:94.234.37.148 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: sprotection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923123698 by Bonadea (talk) - I've repeatedly asked you to provide an explanation for your undoing my edits, but you refuse to. If you have the time to put threatening messages in my talk page, you have the time to actually explain yourselves. Provide a real explanation for your undoing my edits, either in your edit summaries or in the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 923058917 by Grayfell (talk) - Inaccurately citing a single instance as multiple instances."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 923050846 by Grayfell (talk) - Again, please explain why you are undoing the edit. I’m correcting an inaccuracy."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 923022755 by Mrschimpf (talk) - Don't rollback without an explanation. I fixed an inaccuracy, so why are you undoing it?"


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


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


 * Comments:

Almost certainly a return troll/sock, given their edit summaries. bonadea contributions talk 15:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

5th revert after this report: and acknowledgment that they understand 3RR:  --bonadea contributions talk 15:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:Batbash (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, but multiple partial reverts, will show each.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  18:57 22 Oct, revert of  returning "Soviets vans" to lead.
 * 2)  22:34 22 Oct. Revert removing dubious tag on "soviet vans". Deceptive edit summary, their edit on poisoning people did nothing to fix the dubious info. Revert of:
 * 3)  01:56 23 Oct. Revert returning "soviet vans" to lead. Revert of:
 * 4)  18:29 23 Oct. Deceptive edit summary, revert returning "soviet vans" to lead, and removing tags added here:
 * 5)  02:08 24 Oct. Revert of, removing original research tag, and returning disputed date (some sources say 1937).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:24 23 Oct.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Too many diffs. Look at huge discussion at talk.

Comments:

User is edit warring against several other users, and arguing to include fringe content on talk page. On the talk page they cited a Holocaust denial site www.vho.org to support their claims:. Edit warring by user goes back to late September.Batbash (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In case there is any doubt that VHO is a Holocaust denial site, see their Introduction.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, and I never included it on the page or suggested to include. Others brought this source. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You cited two items on vho.org to support Grigorenko source you introduced.Batbash (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did not cite them in main space/article; this source (VHO site) was brought to the talk page and to RSNB by others. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you added Grigorenko's memoirs here: on 21 Oct. After inclusion of the dissident's memoirs was questioned in: Talk:Gas van as " second hand knowledge, hearsay, presented by Grigorenko in a dramatic fashion", YOU cited www.vho.org:  to support use of Grigorenko. One of the piece is by Friedrich Paul Berg, known for Holocaust denial: . The other is Ingrid Weckert, also known for Holocaust denial: . So yes, YOU have used writers known for Holocaust denial to support your addition of Grigorenko. Batbash (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did include a reference to the book by Petro Grigorenko, not VHO site. But he is not a Holocaust denier. To the contrary, he was a highly decorated WWII veteran who bravely fought against Nazi. And frankly, the subject of Soviet gas vans is unrelated to the Holocaust because they were used much earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think edit #2 was a revert (my intention was to fix the dubious content and therefore removed "dubious" tag). Other edits (3 of them) - they were not exact reverts, but I leave this to admins to decide. The content is currently not included on the page, so I can not self-revert. However, I will not to edit this page, let's say for a week, regardless to the outcome here. User Batbash seems to be not a new user, but an SPA created to follow my edits: . My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal attack, I've edited as an IP. The only article I crossed paths with "My very best wishes" is gas vans that I saw on noticeboard. Edit #2 is a revert: User:Assayer added a dubious tag: on Soviet gas vans. "My very best wishes" removed it 2 hours later:, deceptively writing they address the dubious nature of "The gas vans were first used by the Soviet secret police in 1930s.". "My very best wishes" did nothing to address the dubious nature of the Soviet claim. They removed the dubious tag that was added in previous edit: a revert. See talk page section: Talk:Gas van/Archive 1. Batbash (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please use the talk page to settle the questions in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I will note for the record that Batbash has been indefinitely blocked for WP:BE. Mkdw  talk 15:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jamesmiko reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: malformed fully-protected one month)
Page: and other NBA, NHL userboxes

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: I did not restore anything at this point to avoid more edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts: Long term edit warring. Please see the history of the User:UBX/NBA-Clippers (one of many examples) to get a better understanding of the issue

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

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

Comments:

I am reporting Jamesmiko, because he has been edit warring over userboxes' appearance for quite some time. I have standartized (which is encouraged all NBA and NHL userboxes back in 2018, but Jamesmiko pops up once in a while and restores to his preferred versions. For example, the history of the User:UBX/NBA-Clippers (one of many examples) shows what he has been up to. I firstly wrote a message to him in April 2019, and then issued warnings on his talk page in May 2019 and October 2019 for restoring his preferred version of many userboxes' appearances citing MOS:ACCESS as the policy, which he should comply to. However, each time he reverted to his preferred either citing "consistency" or not using the edit summary at all. He ignored the message and both warnings every time and then wrote on my talk page that I could not issue any warnings, because I am not an administrator among other things (administrators should read that message themselves to get a better understanding). This has been going on for too long to leave it alone, because Jamesmiko made it clear in his message on my talk page that he will continue to edit war if his personal taste is not accepted by others. Just looking at his insisted version (this even makes my eyes hurt and I am not color blind or visually impaired) makes it clear that it breaks the MOS:ACCESS policy, while my introduced version removes the MOS:ACCESS issues (with the addition of correct color codes and abbreviations). In addition, he tends to use unverified color codes and uses abbreviations that are not used anywhere. I hope administrators will look into this situation with caution and take action or give an advice about the issue. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C 20:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 02:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahuwwhh and User:Kalangot reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: both users blocked for one week)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Sambandam]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Contribution history for Sambandam - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sambandam&action=history shows that both User:Ahuwwhh and User:Kalangot have been past 3RR for two days.

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

I was asked at User talk:Robert McClenon to address this edit war, and am simply reporting it without trying to mediate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

. The extent of this edit warring is almost unbelievable. El_C 02:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed Kalangot as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Weelandlka reported by User:Vanilla Wizard (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Weelandlka's first revert
 * 2) My first revert
 * 3) Weelandlka's second revert
 * 4) My second revert
 * 5) Weelandlka's third revert
 * 6) My third revert
 * 7) Weelandlka's fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - I should note that the reason I selected was unexplained removal of content, not edit warring. I did, however, mention the 3 Revert Rule after their third revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - link to relevant RFC - diffs of conversing with the editor at their user talk page about the incident

Comments: Sorry in advance if I'm not doing this correctly. I'm really just trying to get someone to intervene before anything gets out of hand. I don't even know if this is the proper way to ask for someone to eye the situation. I'm not trying to get the other user blocked, I'm just feeling overwhelmed and confused right now. My understanding of the situation is that I started an RFC without boldly implementing what I'm trying to find a consensus for, and then the editor started removing citations that I added on multiple occasions, then they went further and outright removed the sentences on which I cited them. I can't understand their English so I'm not really sure why they're doing this, and that makes it much harder to talk it out because communicating with them is effectively impossible. I honestly don't know what I'm supposed to do. Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

. User has self-reverted. El_C 04:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Cptnono reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've requested BLP page protection. This amounts to an effort to make a BLP more negative, failing to give due weight to positive content. I posted three BLP warnings on their talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this BLP became heated after the subject of the BLP began directly editing it and engaging in some pointed, but probably unintentional, off-Wiki canvassing. I can understand all sides feel inundated by what they perceive to be bad faith edits by the other. A very short period of full protection might not be unwarranted due to the effect the canvassing seems to have had and might help move action to Talk where it belongs. It would also, in my opinion, be preferable to blocking well-meaning and seasoned contributors for 3RR (meaning both the subject of this complaint and the filer of it). Chetsford (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * New or seasoned users are subject to the same rules. El_C 06:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 06:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we have the page back to the previous version? And full protection? I cited a pile of sources saying this local journalist was credited with scooping major reporters many times, and been called a journalist by them, and this version condescendingly calls the subject a "blogger", deleting a long string of credits given by others. It utterly distorts the Nextdoor.com incident, making it seem like it was all about earning a block at Nextdoor.com, and failing to credit the journalist with changing city policy. I know this isn't the WP:BLPN but policy is that defamatory content must be removed immediately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✔️. El_C 06:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:159.224.181.7 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: sprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – without disputed content ("Franchise champion").

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  – all identical edits adding disputed content to the article.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – main discussion occurred here.

Comments:

IP keeps inserting "Franchise champion" to the article, which is a deprecated and spurious term that WikiProject Boxing members sought to get rid of at the article talk page. If the IP has a problem with the omission of "Franchise champions", they should seek consensus first—currently they're not. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:95.146.152.152 reported by User:TheTrabiMechanic (Result: sportection, IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported: []

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - no diff - anon IP address, so mine is the only edit.

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

Comments

This politician was suspended hours before a parliamentary selection ballot. The suspension is disputed. I think this editor hopes to make Wikipedia one of the platforms for that dispute - but none of the key information about it is in the public domain. As well as violation of WP:BLP this editor doesn't respect Wikipedia pillars - won't use Talk and gives all their edit summaries as "typos". This is not the first time there has been repeated insertion of unsubstantiated defamatory material and character attacks - when this happened some weeks ago, editing was restricted to signed-in editors.

I expect the defamatory edits to continue as long as he remains leader of his council so I would like to request that restrictions are restored. TrabiMechanic (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also blocked the IP. We cannot have this kind of edit warring, coupled with a refusal to discuss. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:174.21.73.11 reported by User:AlignedText (Result: sprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - before a recent tweet and reddit thread linking to wikipedia

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Here they've created a username to imitate mine and cause confusion while accusing me of violating rules
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This appears to be caused by a recent tweet and reddit thread:  AlignedText (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

. Please stop, all of you — this edit war is disruptive to the article. Use the article talk page to figure out what's what. El_C 05:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User:115.134.33.154 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923297708 by Robynthehode (talk) please don't be deniel person. You could just find a sources rather using Reliable-Outdated Sources. Please no Fighting just because of heights."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 923239784 by Robynthehode (talk)  not an insult but the truth. Please don't use outdated sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of future tallest buildings. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on PNB 118. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I have tried to get this editor to take the issue to the talk page. I have referred to a reliable source for reference for this editor to look at in the edit summary. They have failed to do any. Robynthehode (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sleepinthestars reported by User:137.189.240.39 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/922742018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/922934122
 * 2) Special:Diff/923080379
 * 3) Special:Diff/923145065
 * 4) Special:Diff/923271877

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/923145451

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The users keep on changing the image in the infobox. --137.189.240.39 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaipau reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */Undid revision 922198470 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk) Tag: Undo"
 * 2)  "/* History */Undid revision 921073075 by Za-ari-masen (talk) Tag: Undo"
 * 3)  "/* History */Undid revision 919623954 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk) Tag: Undo"
 * 4)  "/* History */Don't pass off Bengali Alphabet as Bengali script. This is vandalism. Tag: Undo"
 * 5)  "/* History */Wikipedia has alphabets and scripts separately for a reason. Tag: Undo"
 * 6)  "/* History */Please don't pass off a an alphabet as source. Tag: Undo"
 * 7)  "/* History */Wikipedia makes a distinction between Script and Alphabets. Tag: Undo"
 * 8)  "/* History */Undid revision 916298759 by Za-ari-masen."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese languages."

The user is persistently edit-warring in "Bengali–Assamese languages" for some time to include their unsubstantiated claim which they believe is right. They are invited for discussion, but they continued their pattern of behaviour. This behaviour is not new to this user, their talk page history reveals, in past they were warned for edit warring for multiple times spreading over whole range of articles. (Note:User is currently also engaged in edit warring in Assamese people#History. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  03:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bengali–Assamese languages#History */ new section"
 * Comments:

. Article has not been edited in over a week. El_C 03:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sweet Science Fan reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: 24 hours, unblocked and warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I edited the lead section to make it more consistent with the boxing MOS by rearranging amateur and professional achievements and removing the countless unworthy mentions of International and Inter-Continental titles. User:Sweet Science Fan reverted the edits, as shown above, with no explanation. On the third revert User:Sweet Science Fan logged out in an attempt to bypass the 3RR. If you compare the contributions made by the User and the IP, it’s pretty clear it’s the same person. Apologies if I’ve made a mistake in the report. If so, please let me know how. 2 . O . Boxing 22:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 03:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

. On 2nd thought, I find that the warning was insufficient — "3RR" wasn't even linked in that edit summary, and at any case, a proper warning, like uw-3rr, should have been placed on the user's talk page. As well, I'm not sure they necessarily used the IP to evade 3RR. Maybe they accidentally logged out. El_C 03:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:KazamaCarlos reported by User:Yunshui (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (actually a userpage discussion, rather than an article talkpage discussion - the response was another revert)

Comments: KazumaCarlos is repeatedly removing the Injuries section and information about deaths in aikido, claiming that they are lies (the existence of such deaths is sourced in the article and is easily verified from the table at, which lists various other reliable sources such as the Journal of the Japan School Safety Association and multiple court cases). Yunshui 雲 水 09:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * KazamaCarlos wants to quit anyway - Special:Diff/923559884. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:ScholarM reported by User:Kutyava (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923589763 by Kutyava (talk) Stop biased reversion, restored to version which is improved and supported by RS"
 * 2)  "My edits with RS and VS were reverted by a very apparent biased editor Kutya . He seems to revert everything from this article.Stop it  and follow Wiki guidelines of neutrality while editing"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 923415048 by Rayan1980 (talk): Dont delete RS and VS, dont accuses falsely.Read sources well  help in improving  (TW)"
 * 4)  "/* Alumni Achievements */ neutralize the language, but not deleting sourced and verified points"
 * 5)  "/* Faculties */"
 * 6)  "/* Placements */ adding some info with VS"
 * 7)  "/* Placements */"
 * 8)  "edit with clean hands dont do disruptive editing, University can inform about its departments on its official website so info about Darul Huda about its department and related affiliation can best be taken from its site"
 * 9)  "RS with info about naming added"
 * 10)  "/* History */ additional RS added for info about students"
 * 11)  "/* Publication */ Info about its alumni association added"
 * 12)  "added one more dept"
 * 13)  "affiliated colleges added"
 * 14)  "/* Affiliated Institutions */ with source"
 * 15)  "sourced info added"
 * 16)  "improving with sources/"
 * 17)  "/* top */ rv tagged, sources added, further adding"
 * 18)  "adding reliable sources"
 * 19)  "Government Report on Madarsas, Darul Huda"
 * 20)  "/* Achievement */ ref added"
 * 21)  "content with more sources"
 * 22)  "/* Relations */  two already existing on wiki added, editors please edit to improve not to distort"
 * 23)  "/* External links */"
 * 24)  "info about samstha"
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "info about samstha"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * See also Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of Kutyava’s edits appear to be either vandalism or vandalism adjacent, particularly . With that being said they are clearly both contributing to this edit war. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What's that whooshing sound? This is not only an inappropriate report for AIV, but a mischaracterization of the other user's edits. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . After filing their various reports, both editors have continued edit warring. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: pre-war

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked the user to go to talk page for the reason of identical edits made by him, twice in April and in September, no response. I also gave quote which he doesn't care to see:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 1) 3

Comments:

This is the third time when the user does edit warring with the same edit. One was a month ago (link 1 and link 2), when he was called to talk page. Earlier was another one in March (link 3), he was called to talk page then either (links are given in attempts section). Looks like stretched edit warring. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . There is not a single message on Хаджимурад's Talk page, not a warning of edit-warring or a notification of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 you're badly mistaken. he doesn't answer for months when invited to talk page and clearly violates 3RR rule this time. he does that recurrently from month to month. and what about these invites from me
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2


 * What signs of bad intentions and warring does he have to show? Why should I warn him, when he expresses vandalism, on all kind of pages, when I already called him twice to talk page? Isn't it enough that I keep cleaning after him, calling him to talk page, and never receive any adequate response? Does he keep to do whatever he wants wasting time of other editors? Please explain your decision in details. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Besides, I mentioned him with the template that was given. Let me try again User:Хаджимурад.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One more way, I suppose . Please explain why you conduct edit warring and never answer on talk page regarding the matter above, for months. And why you keep making vandal edits from month to month.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One more disruptive edit and you risk being blocked. Stop this nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 well, I suppose it's your role to demonstrate the power instead of dealing with vandalism and edit warring which is continuing for months. you're in charge then, OK.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:2.48.161.221 reported by User:Harshil169 (Result: Page semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Biography */Added content."
 * 2)  "Adding incorrect information."
 * 3)  "Incorrect information"
 * 4)  "Incorrect information added"
 * 5)  "Incorrect information."
 * 1)  "Incorrect information added"
 * 2)  "Incorrect information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Morari Bapu. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Morari Bapu. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Morari Bapu. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Morari Bapu. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Morari Bapu. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP is blanking sourced sections on the page, and adding unsourced, and probably defamatory content about living person even after multiple warnings issued. After restoring sourced contents, IP again started to remove information from page. No 3RR is violated but IP is doing edit war by again and again blanking sections. This can be considered as part of vandalism too.  Harshil want to talk? 05:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Morari Bapu has been semiprotected one month by User:NinjaRobotPirate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:92.9.191.72 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Persistent edit warring over the billing block and has threated to continue doing it until the film's release. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Akj2935 reported by User:Begoon (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Television */ Dont tell me the rules, if u want rules first remove these guest appearnces from other celebrity wiki page then i will not add this things ok...."
 * 2)  "/* Television */ Added this things with proper citation, see other wiki pages before removing this things."
 * 3)  "Someone deleted this section special apprearnce, but i want to tell that why you deleted this, it is mentioned with proper references. you see others celebrity , they have without refences, but this actor have this section with proper references, dont change"
 * 1)  "Someone deleted this section special apprearnce, but i want to tell that why you deleted this, it is mentioned with proper references. you see others celebrity , they have without refences, but this actor have this section with proper references, dont change"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Add special appearance */ +"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pearl V Puri. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Edit */ r"


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


 * Comments:

I've also reverted 3 times, plus one edit to try and help them by replacing a picture for them which they had also objected to the removal of by another editor - but all while trying to explain on the user's talk page why they needed to discuss adding content which 3 other users had told them they disagree with. Their latest response is "I told you many times... Firstly you check many celebrities wiki page, then you remove the content.... I will add this things... I made this page and you hell come to remove this things.... Better don't remove and show rules... You need to know the rule first... See other wiki pages have this things...not one many pages. You remove first from that page... Ten i will stop putting in it" - so I don't think they intend to stop reverting every time their content is removed and they are asked to discuss, but I won't revert again, so they have stopped now with their content in place. See also -- Begoon 11:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:AnxFab reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Haven't got that far yet!

Comments:

The page has been stable as a redirect, but this user has attempted to repeatedly turn it into a biography citing self-published promotional sources and other Wikipedia articles. That's just not acceptable for a BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:174.126.168.126 reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no consensus on the the removed statement, among scholars or editors, as is clearly evidenced by the talk page for the article and every article about Islamic actions in Europe and around the world from the founding of the religion through to the present day."
 * 2)  "Specify exactly which western European imperialist actions against the Middle Eastern world in the 18th century you are referring to. It is common knowledge that Islamic caliphates governed by Salafists had invaded and occupied Greece, Spain, Portugal and much of eastern Europe and Italy between the 13th and 19th centuries. Efforts by western European nations to regain independence from Islamic imperialistic caliphates and prevent further invasion cannot be described as "western imperialism"."
 * 3)  "Additional Source"
 * 4)  "The argument that Salafism was a response to "western European imperialism" is utterly false and is obvious Jihadist propaganda. How can restoring policies from a thousand years prior, which persisted throughout the Ottoman Empire, be a response to Western anything? The Ottomans joined the Germans in invading Europe and lost. How is that European Imperialism? Salafism is Islam in its original form, and Islam has always gravitated toward it by nature. Where there's Islam, there's Salafism."
 * 1)  "Additional Source"
 * 2)  "The argument that Salafism was a response to "western European imperialism" is utterly false and is obvious Jihadist propaganda. How can restoring policies from a thousand years prior, which persisted throughout the Ottoman Empire, be a response to Western anything? The Ottomans joined the Germans in invading Europe and lost. How is that European Imperialism? Salafism is Islam in its original form, and Islam has always gravitated toward it by nature. Where there's Islam, there's Salafism."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Salafi movement. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Salafi movement */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Salafi movement */ c"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Remove the Suggestion that Salafism was somehow caused by or in response to "Western European Imperialism", and stop edit warring when someone tries to correct the error, then accusing the person who attempted to correct the error of Edit Warring */  c"


 * Comments:

It seems we have a TIGER with a HEARing problem. Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By "TIGER", I suppose you mean WP:BATTLEGROUND with personal attacks and threats: "This is now a political and military issue, and it will soon be taken out of your hands.". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 months. The IP editor has been blocked for as long as one month in the past, and seems to be on their way to WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:2804:D51:D8A:900:DC2F:D9DE:CD7B:2272 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* This page is so incomplete */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 3)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 1)  "/* This page is so incomplete */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 3)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 1)  "/* This page is so incomplete */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 3)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 1)  "/* This page is so incomplete */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 3)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 1)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 1)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"
 * 2)  "/* where are the 66 titles? */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Arthur Ashe. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* October 2019 */"
 * 1)   "/* October 2019 */"


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


 * Comments:
 * This editor was being reverted by other editors, but as fast as lightning he removed content again and added things without sourcing. It was tough to keep up. No responses from his own talk page and no edit summaries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is now back as anon IP User talk:2804:D51:D05:7000:9D64:6219:918D:ECCA doing the same stuff. Is there some range block possible or is it too wide a scope? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The range is indeed too wide to block comfortably. I think page protection would be the better solution. Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected Arthur Ashe for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Joseph Rowe reported by User:Sunrise (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (2 edits, 10 October; reverted by Simonm223)
 * 2) (7 edits, 15 October; reverted by LuckyLouie with a request to open a talk discussion.)
 * 3) (2 edits, 16 October; reverted by Alexbrn)
 * 4) (2 edits, 18 October; reverted by me with a request to open a talk discussion. Edit warring notice given at this point. )
 * 5) (1 edit, 21 October, reverted by LuckyLouie with another request to open a talk discussion)
 * 6) (1 edit, 23 October, reverted by Objective3000. Joseph Rowe now opens a talk page section. Several additional editors comment with unanimous opposition. )
 * 7) (5 edits, 29 October, without any further attempt to discuss; reverted by me as there is an obvious overwhelming consensus against the edits.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Not a 3RR case, but the edit warring should be clear. The edits are all to the same paragraph and follow the same theme, which is "some conspiracy theories are true" (#1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7) with a secondary focus on 'conspiracy theory' is a neutral term according to the dictionary" (#1, #2, #3, #7). The second one is written differently each time, but the first is always a specific edit that adds a qualification to the lead sentence, changing "are" to "seem" (with the reasoning being made explicit in the edit summaries, e.g. diff 1 - Just basic logic and semantics. Not ALL conspiracy theories are false... - but also half a dozen others not seen in the diff views due to each diff covering multiple edits).

At this point the changes have been opposed by 9 (arguably 10) different editors via either reverting or talk page comment, with nobody in support. Beyond the single talk page comment that incurred unanimous opposition, there have been no further attempts to discuss. Instead, the editor made yet another series of edits, so they clearly mean to continue trying to force the changes through. I also note that the single talk page comment includes the phrase "I'm not going to give up". Sunrise <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: Joseph Rowe has commented at the talk page again in response to this filing, saying they won’t pursue this further, so there’s probably no immediate threat of continuing disruption right now. That said, the way they said it was I give up for now (emphasis added), which sounds to me like they’re just planning to try again at some point. In particular they apparently continue to believe that their view is indisputably correct, as shown by the series of personal attacks (also at their user talk page here) where they attribute disagreement to stupidity (via Friedrich Schiller quote) and ulterior motives (an agenda of convincing people, etc). So I’m not sure what the best approach is here, and I leave it to the reviewing admins to determine. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Sunrise, if I knew how to do it (and cared to bother with it) I'd report YOU, for defamatory misrepresentation of me, claiming I made "personal attacks" ... I've never attacked any person, only their arguments. Yes, I quoted Schiller to indicate the stupidity of the insistence of this band of 9 or 10 missionaries who want to rewrite the dictionary. But I never said a single one of you is stupid... nor do I personally believe it... even intelligent people can get caught up in groupthink stupidity like this — the intellectual equivalent of a mob mentality. I confess I haven't been very polite in my refutations. But its hard to be polite when I'm faced by people who want to discredit me, or shut me up by any means possible, including falsely charging me with "personal attacks".Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Joseph Rowe is warned. They are risking a block for edit warring if they make further edits of Conspiracy theory that don't have prior consensus on the article talk page. It appears that Joseph Rowe has a conception of what the article should say that lacks any support from others. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Samp4ngeles reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923730047 by MrX (talk)  reverted it based on WP:VANDAL by (talk) -- does not require consensus on the talk page to do so"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 923723439 by Xenagoras (talk) (reverted WP:VANDAL and added RS citations)"
 * 3)  "Updated legal name based on RS in Talk"
 * 4)  "added birth name, which corresponds with public records"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: American Politics - DS Alert. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tulsi Gabbard. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tulsi born as Tulasi */ comment"


 * Comments:

Article is under 1RR and 24 hour wait per WP:ARBAPDS - MrX 🖋 12:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Samp4ngeles is warned. They may be blocked if they make any more reverts regarding the spelling of Tulsi Gabbard's first name unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:14.139.226.226 reported by User:HunMaster (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Rmmiller44 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of discretionary sanction notice
 * 1)


 * Comments:

Violation of discretionary sanctions / WP:1RR. Edit history shows a non-neutral right-wing editing bias. A short block may educate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. My edit was a completely neutral correction to non-neutral left-wing bias in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS that presents an opinion as if it were fact. The offending statement claimed that a characterization of events by President Trump was "false." His statement was his own POV, and is unfalsifiable. It CANNOT be proven true of false. Thus labeling it as false violates WP standards. It is factual that he believes the inquiry is a coup. It is not factual that this statement is false, but rather someone else's opinion.

For example, saying "I like chocolate ice cream," is a FACT because it can be proven true or false. Saying "Chocolate ice cream tastes good," is an OPINION that cannot be proven true or false. Trump offered an OPINION from his POV that the inquiry is an attempted coup. It is simply not possible to derive facts proving this true or false.

The reversion was maliciously intended to maintain a non-neutral viewpoint in what should be a neutral and objective article. My removal of the word "falsely" left the opinions of the source intact and up to the reader to decide whether to share that opinion.

Left-wing editors are turning WP into a propaganda site and using reversions, non-existent consensus, biased non-authoritative opinion pieces as fact, discretionary restrictions, and WP sanctions to block anyone from correcting WP standard violations.

And THAT is a coup, in my opinion. Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)rmmiller
 * , Trump offered a falsehood, not an opinion, and we can call out falsehoods as such. This is not a "non-existent" consensus as it has been discussed on the talk page at length. You chose to violate 1RR and discretionary sanctions, which you were made of. Your defense is essentially to obfuscate and counterpunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , your fellow editors have actually been quite patient with you. The page is actually under 1RR and discretionary sanctions, and they repeatedly tried to explain why your edit was inappropriate, to the point you got to 3RR. This is in addition to administrators and other users rather calmly talking to you on your talk page, and even offering advice on conduct and collegiality. Then it appears you attempted to get User:Beyond My Ken sanctioned using !adminhelp, claiming you were being attacked. Again, you were responded to in a rather patient and helpful manner by User:JamesBWatson, offering you VERY sound advice. Here, you state that their editing is part of a vast conspiracy based on their supposed political leanings, and a “coup”. The fundamental issue here is your intractable behaviour. NPOV doesn’t mean what you think it does. It means we reflect what reliable sources say, without undue equivocating or false balance. The subject of an article could believe purple elephants from space are controlling his/her mind. Hell, it may even be true. But if RS say it’s false, so do we. You need to spend some time cooling your heels, and learning how this works. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Rmmiller44 has some strong opinions about American politics, and has made it abundantly clear that their opinion about how Wikipedia should work matters more than the policies that everyone else manages to follow. - MrX 🖋 23:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Rmmiller44 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they violate the WP:1RR restriction at Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Since the time that the 1RR rule was explained on their talk page they haven't continued to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any new warnings about their violation of discretionary sanctions. Are they not getting one from an uninvolved admin? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've issued a regular admin warning against further undiscussed reverts. I did not do anything under Arbcom authority, though those sanctions are still in place on the article and it is likely that any further 1RR violations could lead to a DS block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll quote you on that if this user does come back and violates the discretionary sections again. Based on their tone in their edit history, I assume they're only taking a brief break and will be back. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:171.61.218.101 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923898031 by MarkH21 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 923894669 by Money emoji (talk)   http://famouspoliticaleader.blogspot.com/2016/05/manpreet-ayali-punjab-mla.htmlis not reliable source"
 * 3)  "ive updated the external link of the person whom this page is about"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 923886703 by Jebcubed (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* References */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

5 reverts in two hours by the IP to add social media links and unsourced content (5 is not even including the intermittent SPA reverts) — MarkH21 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:92.239.205.101 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is the same person that I reported, and who was subsequently warned, for edit warring on the Dereck Chisora page the other day (User:Sweet Science Fan/User: 92.239.205.101, and more recently User:86.130.209.143). I correctly changed "Southern Area title" to "British Southern Area title". Firstly, because that’s what the title is. Secondly, somebody that is not a hardcore boxing fan, or one who is not British, and is just browsing the record table would be forced to click the link to see what a Southern Area title is, and even then, the link itself does not immediately make clear what a Southern Area title is. IP User: 92.239.205.101 reverted the edit twice, then on the third occasion reverted again through IP User: 86.130.209.143, then back to User: 92.239.205.101 for the fourth revert. It’s clear both IP's are the same person through the edit summaries, and also clear from the previous mentioned report I made that both IP's are used by User:Sweet Science Fan. I left an edit warring/3RR warning on both IP's talk pages as shown above. I also do not appreciate childish insults when my only intention is to maintain consistency of boxing pages as per the boxing MOS. 2 . O . Boxing 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If Squared.Circle.Boxing is correct for reverting my edits, then surely others would have done so by now or do so in the future also but no one ever has and I suspect ever will. Seeing as he is the only person reverting my edits then only he has a problem. All he seems interested in is edit warring which is illustrated by the fact that he initiated this. He incorrectly changed "Southern Area title" to to "British Southern Area title" because he deems that the BBBofC should be shortened to British... therefore the BBBofC British title would then become the British British title by his logic. Contrary to his claim that clicking on my link to see what a Southern Area title is does not immediately make clear what the title is of course is wrong seeing as you can instantly see the Southern Area title under councils without so much as having to scroll down, more amusingly if you click on his link however it takes you to exactly the same information as mine does. HE IS THE ONE REVERTING MY EDITS FIRST. His only intention is not to maintain consistency as that would suggest that he was not the one who began editing all these pages in this manner in the first place but instead he has taken it upon himself to monopolise wikipedia and force his own perceived correct style of writing onto others. Again if ANYONE ELSE other than Squared.Circle.Boxing has any exception with my edits and reverts them then I will have no problem with that but as it stands only HE IS THE ONE who is causing this. Also the fact he is under the impression that my editing through both my IP's was a means of concealing the fact that the edits were coming from me and me alone is a joke as I just simply don't stay logged in at all times.

I made a constructive edit to the record table as per the MOS, which you clearly refuse to read. It is not my "perceived correct style of writing"...it is the MANUAL OF STYLE set forth by other users long before I began editing. As the manual of style states, British Boxing Board of Control or BBBoC is to be shortened to British, therefore, BBBoC Southern Area title becomes British Southern Area title, not Southern Area title, which also makes my linking of British to the British Boxing Board of Control correct. Simply listing the title as Southern Area isn’t very encyclopaedic. Your reasoning of "British British title" is illogical, as the word British (and the accompanying link) makes the need for BBBoC redundant. As I’ve stated, all I’m doing is following the manual of style, which is there in an attempt to maintain consistency across boxing pages. 2 . O . Boxing 15:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussing this with you further is clearly a monumental exercise in futility, I don't care about your so called constructive edits as per blah blah blah MOS as you keep repeating endlessly and no one else clearly does either. well then LET THE OTHER USERS revert my edits to that MANUAL OF STYLE. All you are doing is being a irritating nuisance. LET OTHERS maintain consistency across boxing pages instead of just you. “This user enjoys smoking cannabis” sums you up as you clearly have a lot of time on your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Science Fan (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The link User:Schazjmd has posted is indeed the guideline I am adhering to, Thank you.

I am no longer willing to engage in conversation with a childish individual that wishes to partake in pathetic arguments and comically try to insult me through Wikipedia lol. I shall continue to make constructive edits and correct errors per the manual of style while doing my best to adhere to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, and shall also continue to report any breaches of Wikipedia's rules and regulations. 2 . O . Boxing 16:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Courtesy link to style guideline being referred to, as best as I can tell. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Please use the talk page to get agreement. If one of the editors continues to jump back and forth between an IP and an account, they are risking a block under the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sweet Science Fan reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Both 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:

Same as my report the other day. I left and same as my report yesterday. User:Sweet Science Fan keeps needlessly reverting constructive edits with no explanation. User claims I’m reverting all of his edits, when in actual fact it is he who has caused this by constantly reverting my initial edit. I’ve opened a discussion on the talk page which I clearly stated in my edit summaries numerous times, I also left a comment on the talk pages of both User:Sweet Science Fan and the associated IP, as well as leaving edit warring/3RR warnings. WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines show that my edits are constructive, so the reverts are pointless. I also do not appreciate being told to "get a life" because User:Sweet Science Fan likes the way the lead was written and chooses to ignore the MOS. This is the third report for the same user, it is getting very tedious and rather pathetic now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 October, 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Sweet Science Fan and User:Squared.Circle.Boxing are warned. Either one may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So it’s a warning for both when one person is making constructive edits that adhere to MOS:BOXING/LEAD, while the other is reverting said edits, with no explanation whatsoever, back to a version that is not consistent with the MOS or every other boxer's lead section? That makes sense. This is also his second warning in the space of a week for the same page. How am I supposed to make constructive edits to a page if they’re going to cause an edit war and get me warned or even possibly blocked? 2 . O . Boxing  19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Squared.Circle.Boxing. Whether you are right or not, you are not entitled to keep reverting forever. It seems you are embarked on a program to improve the leads of boxing articles, based on your own reading of MOS:BOXING/LEAD. Now that your program has encountered resistance, it may be time to open a discussion at a central place such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. By appealing to a WikiProject you can get the opinions of people who work with these articles regularly, and you are not always fighting against one person. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall do so for both disputes. Thank you for the suggestion. 2 . O . Boxing  19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Nights At Nyte reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Page protected, Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 923971740 by The Grand Delusion (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 923931304 by The Grand Delusion (talk) Please don't remove this again. It can't get anymore official than HBO Max themselves showing it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 923803672 by Drmies (talk) How is the HBO Max presentation showing ALL Max Originals considered unreliable?"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has repeatedly re-instated content that was added by at the objections of editors, including myself and. However, I don't think the two accounts are related. EDIT: I am starting to suspect the accounts might be related. They have demonstrated a similar level of combative behavior and defensiveness when reverted. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Given the on going sockpuppet investigation, I figured it was preferable to protect the page while waiting how it turned out.  You've both broken the three revert rule here. Expect to be blocked if this behaviour continues when the protection expires. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CoffeeCartier reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – stable edition containing the disputed review material.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – first revert, using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as rationale.
 * 2)  – second revert, same rationale. No point in me reverting further and encouraging 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:CoffeeCartier has been invited to start a discussion at the article talk page—it's his dispute, so discussion should be initiated by him.

Comments:

User:CoffeeCartier disagrees with the inclusion of a negative remark about Frank Gambale's singing on the Thunder from Down Under album, even though AllMusic staff reviews are RS per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I also don't feel as though WP:WEIGHT is an issue here, as three stars out of five is still a decent-to-positive rating, and several tracks are "listed as highlights". The reviewer's remarks about the vocals should be considered fair criticism, so User:CoffeeCartier's grievance is mostly invalid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2.248.51.198 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on William Rowan Hamilton. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2019 */ further comment"


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

The page contains misleading information that the subject was Irish which is misleading. His nationality would have been of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at that time and this must be represented on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.51.198 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I gave a templated warning, and a personal note on their talk page asking them to discuss, but they aren't listening; now edit warring against multiple editors. I would block myself, but having reverted them a couple of times I'm probably too involved. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie reported by User:Ultimâ (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (before contribution):
 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12 July 2019
 * 2) 14 July 2019
 * 3) 4 August 2019
 * 4) 29 September 2019
 * 5) 1 November 2019
 * 6) 1 November 2019

3RR warning:
 * 1) User Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk considered and updates made.

Comments:


 * Wiki policy advises against reverting (deleting) user contributions and rather proposing amendments instead in the talk page. This user has removed my contribution (which was adapted based on talk page) six times. This user has previous history of edit warring. Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Page:
 * Similarly this user is removing my contributions here:
 * 1) 15 July 2019
 * 2) 29 September 2019
 * 3) 1 November 2019
 * 4) 1 November 2019

(P.S. I can create a seperate report if advised) Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you recommending? That Ultimâ and MrOllie be blocked? Repeating an edit to force preferred text is edit warring. Please use WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation Perhaps it would be better to look at why your change is being described as "not an improvement" (it's also unsourced, by the way). Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Both 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: "you are at 3RR" and "Wally is at 3RR, by the way"

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

Comments:


 * I'm not sure why this user would not have continued the conversation on the talk page. I will self-revert if that is appropriate, although this would seem to be a clear boomerang if SchroCat is serious. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have reverted four times. Were you serious when you reported me for not reverting four times? - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:SchroCat and User:Wallyfromdilbert are warned. The next person to revert the article may be blocked unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:162.251.9.27 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Guillermo Gonzalez */"
 * 2)  "deleted unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
 * 3)  "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
 * 4)  "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
 * 1)  "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Its also clearly a SPA that is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is no guideline discouraging adding a “see also” section on templates. This user continually reverts insisting that the fact that “see also” suggestions exist on “article” guidelines explicitly means these sections are disallowed on templates - this is not correct. See also sections between templates is not an uncommon practice (see NFL, NBA). I encouraged the user to start a consensus discussion to try and institute guidance in this, but he declines to do so. Rikster2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user is aware there is opposition to his change, and it has been discussed on his talk page, but he keeps right on reverting. If his edits are justified by a policy, he should be able to link to it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:101.109.175.0 reported by User:Gend07000 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing and constantly try to editing the article without explanation and references Gend07000 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you articulate what is actually wrong with their edits? ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP edited the article many times without sources or explanation, adding unrelated images and reverted my edit 3 times. I suspect the user won't use his real account to edit the article. The user real account is Oppufc, evidence:  Gend07000 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. I hope this will encourage discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:79.132.16.97 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I contributed by stating facts and evidence without demonstrating personal point of view as it was the case before my edit."
 * 2)  "/* Geocentrism */"
 * 3)  "/* Geocentrism */"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)    "Warning: Three-revert rule on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * 1)  "/* Geocentrism */"
 * 2)  "/* Geocentrism */"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)    "Warning: Three-revert rule on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)    "Warning: Three-revert rule on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"

Not needed. Ordinary WP:PROFRINGE edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also WP:DUCK from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Was going to come here and say just that, clearly the same user. But they are not (technically) socking yet.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Evading 3RR is WP:BADSOCK, blocked the account 31 for hours. Go ahead and report again if additional accounts or IPs show up. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:LissanX reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:LissanX has for two days made 6 reverts to this article. Choosing instead to game the system, while calling two other editors vandals, and when I added my concerns/questions to the talk page, Lissan called my concerns nonsensical, moronic and lacking competence to edit Wikipedia. LissanX has chose not to answer my questions and ran to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Now LissanX has readded the information to the article, yet again without consensus. If at all possible, LissanX needs to answer how these primary sources are related to Shahrbanu and to show this evidence on the talk page. Not sure a block is necessary, especially if this editor can learn how the discussion/consensus process works(Admin's choice). Admin's may want to take into account, LissanX's latest comments.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Kansas Bear removed content in the opening section. I disagreed, but never re-added the content. User:Kansas Bear said it was not appropriate since it’s not talked about in the body of the article, so I added relevant information to the body of the article. Note that I never re-added the previously removed content in the opening section. Additionally, User:Kansas Bear made personal insults on the talk page for Shahrbanu. I responded to his insults, and he subsequently left a warning on my talk page. I said that he was provoking me with insults and ended the conversation. So now he’s reporting me for adding the content in question to the body of the article, all of which is sourced, as some kind of manufactured revenge . — LissanX (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I blocked LissanX for harassment/personal attacks for 72 hours. I have not judged the edit warring, but I note blocked them for that a year ago. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. Can we ensure they present their evidence on the talk page when they get back? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:MONGO (Result: report declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  09:19, October 31, 2019‎
 * 2)  12:50, October 31, 2019
 * 3)  18:46, October 31, 2019
 * 4) [Rarely a 4th diff as he games the system. 3RR is not an entitlement.]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Fully recognize the brightline rule of 3RR and I never exceed 2RR on any page except in cases of vandalism reversion. However, Snooganssnoogans makes a history of edit warring. He rarely if ever does go to 4RR, but thats besides the point as he is STILL edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement. He's gaming the system. Other examples of edit warring/gaming the system just in last couple months:
 * Comments:
 * On RAISE Act: 16:27, October 13, 2019, 17:54, October 13, 2019, 18:52, October 13, 2019
 * On Mitch McConnell:07:18, September 2, 2019, 10:38, September 2, 2019, 11:06, September 2, 2019, followed a week after by this BLP violating edit summary
 * On Abby Martin, edit warring against several others:08:12, October 29, 2019, 11:39, October 29, 2019‎, followed by a partial revert 12:10, October 29, 2019--MONGO (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it "gaming the system" unless there was another revert just after 24 hours. And, the photo doesn't really seem to connect to any text anywho. Work it out on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: You're bringing me here for reverting you in a case where you brazenly failed to adhere to WP:BRD on the Don Bacon page and you yourself were edit-warring? I reverted the addition of new content to the page (which is my right per BRD) and started a talk page discussion on it, whereas you have twice restored the content without any discussion on the talk page in-between your edits (despite the fact that you're the one seeking to add new content). As for the content in question, it is absolutely ludicrous to turn the Wikipedia page of a congress member into a photo gallery of his time in the military. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not comment till after your third revert and after I had logged off for the day. I stated on the talkpage that the man has a 29 year military career so naturally more usable images are likely available from that time period than the few years he has been in Congress. I did not add the content to begin with anyway...another editor did. You seem to have a serious issue with the misunderstanding that this is a content issue, not a vandalism issue, yet you revert as if it is a vandalism issue. Thats called edit warring and I stopped after 2 reverts...which exceeds my usual 1RR only because your rationale is immaterial.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding that you could have removed the far poorer quality image of him where he is standing in front of the airplane. The new image is a high resolution and larger file by a long shot.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to swap pictures, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But then again, substantively trying to resolve the issue in BRD-style does not seem to have been the goal - the goal was just to pointlessly revert me and then drag me here when I inevitably refused to let you bully bad content into the article in violation of Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is anyone who plays the bully in this matter, it's you. I could have gone for the the check and forced you to a 4RR but unlike you I dont edit war incessantly. If the admins want more evidence thats readily available as I only looked at some of the most recent examples. Since at least one admin already has said they question your ability to deliver NPOV content it would be wise to cease accusing anyone else of bad content. This isnt about content though...its a distinct matter involving edit warring and how you repeatedly game the system. I think you should be placed on a six month 1RR restriction.--MONGO (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is standard behavior for Snooganssnoogans. There might be hundreds of examples of the revert war games they play, but always careful not to exceed the bright line. Check their talk page history and see how many warnings have been placed, with few responses. I think an Arb case is needed for Snoog’s editing in general. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have hundreds of examples, please present them here or be silent. I could make the same claim about MONGO and you. But, that's not how noticeboards work. Let us not waste time here over a simple content dispute. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not right to make sweeping personal generalizations about an editor from a few diffs or even from several or many diffs. Any complaint should be confined to the matter at hand with well-defined evidence. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

— I'm sorry, but this just isn't the venue to address these sort of potential problems. Such a venue would be AN/I, where, for example, such specialized sanctions as a six month 1RR restriction, and so on, can be proposed and implemented. AN3, by contrast, doesn't really operate in this manner. It is a place where a single admin determines whether, above all other things, 3RR was violated. Although, indeed, sometimes, also whether a chronic edit warring that does not breach 3RR ought to come under sanctions, as well, but this happens more rarely. At any rate, it is difficult to determine from the diffs whether such sanction is due or undue here, one way or the other. I suggest if you still wish to pursue this, MONGO, take your concerns and proposal on how to best resolve them to AN/I and see what the community has to say about it. Relying on a single admin to make that determination is simply unlikely to happen. So I thought I would, at least, spare you the time and energy of continuing to contribute to this report. That said, if another admin feels that I erred in my evaluation here, they may overrule me and close this report as they fit without the need to notify or consult me further in any way whatsoever. El_C 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * AN/I usually has the usual suspects take sides and nothing emerges. I suspect AE is the next step.--MONGO (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or drop the stick. It's easy. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No...you're next. Youre behavior is worse now than it was before your disappearing act as has been noted.--MONGO (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It says “DECLINED”. Either a) drop it, b) stop the bluster and the obnoxious WP:BATTLEGROUND threats (“you’re next”) or c) follow through on those threats of yours and risk the WP:BOOMERANG coming hard at ya’.  Volunteer Marek   01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And I would add to that the personal attack you just made against this editor in an edit summary at: . I'd suggest a BOOM if this was still open. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:70.73.112.32 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * – 48 hours by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Correction With Evidence reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "Text added"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Ashay jodla"
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "Text added"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Ashay jodla"
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "Text added"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Ashay jodla"
 * 1)  "Ashay jodla"


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


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


 * Comments:

User refuses to discuss issues at the talk. Initially added unsourced content, , , now added huge messy prose, likely copypasted. Also with unreliable sources and original researches. See Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit war warning was given by User:HinduKshatrana here, I've included that above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sadko reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Concessions)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "style, the same"
 * 2)  "Wikipedia is not an essay."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 924545063 by Ktrimi991 (talk) Dubious, discuss it on the TP first. The info given is not correct, such ideas were popular in the 18th century Montenegro. Naturally, international authors are sometimes unaware of such data. Plus, the style of this pseudo-intellectual info. is neither good nor notable."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 924454809 by Ktrimi991 (talk) unexplained edit removed."
 * 5)  "refs. saved. per TP (no consensus)"
 * 1)  "refs. saved. per TP (no consensus)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry */ re"


 * Comments:
 * Was warned by some time ago . Sadko has said on the talk page that he will not stop reverting, but I will remove it as soon as tomorrow. And I will remove it day after day . And indeed, apart from the rv made in the last 24 hours, Sadko made 5 other rv in the few last days. He has already made 3 rv today on Matija Zmajević, and if one takes a look at his editing history, massive rv is not sth rare. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been asked by 4 editors on the talk page (one of them me) to not remove content. For clarification, the first two rv listed in the report concerned a long-standing sentence. The three other rv concerned new content added by me today. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since October 30, I have made 3 rv (two on October 31 and one on November 3. The other edits of mine were additions of new content or, in one case, modification of an existing sentence unrelated with the edit war ). has made 4 rv (two on October 31 and two on November 2).  has made 1 rv (today). Sadko has made 9 rv, always removing content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

0) That alleged warring was over a content dispute (I later worked and had a quailty debate with the editor who pushed the report). It is only natural that I got a warning, the other editor was also warned. It is touchy issue and my changes were too radical for the moment and It was a fair decision by the respected admin. This was a nice attempt to discredit me (it says a lot about the repoter), because, for my 11 years on Wiki I only got one 24h ban. 1) I had no intent to edit war and this is is not edit warring but clear content dispute. This report is nothing more than an attempt to scare and label other editors who disagree with the given agenda driven edits by one or two editors. It wil simplyl not work because it is wrong on a number of levels. 2) Diff one is the same thing said in less words. Nothing crucial was removed. Diff two is per proper concern that is a reason given in the edit description, per basic Wiki rules and the manual of style. Diff three is raising an issue and informing fellow editors that the information provided by a single source is not valid. 3) Unexplained edits (without a proper reason or concensus) could/should be reverted, the last I checked. 4) The fourth diff is giving the article NPOV (which is an issue on the Balkan topics, whcih can be seen by the content added by the user who pushed this report). 4.1) Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is a false represntation because It is not about my concers, none. It is just a bad manipulation, which is quite sad. 5) Diffs from Zmajevic article are removal of unsourced content which is not per MOS: Lead in any way and smells like vandalism. That is no argument and it only proves that the editor filing this report is a hardcore stalker, which has been raised several times on his respecatble TP. 6) And yes, I indeed said that I will remove that content day after day. Here is why: a lot of imporant issues were raised at the TP (be my guest and check), proper arguments were given, a discussion followed. This youngster ignored most of the issues and went on to push his POV, which is nothing new. I understand that Wiki is not a democracy but ignoring other editors, their arguments and pushing a POV is everything I dislike and fought against here despite clear and constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding. I am not saying that anyone is the victim here and I do not pretend to be one, but clear ganging up and content pushing covered with numbers is taking place here. The same was done on other articles such as List of destroyed heritage. The end-game here is that I get banned and that it can be used as a card on the TP, which would discredit my work on that and related pages. There was indeed no consensus and I wanted and still want to create a quaility article which will not be filled with spam filth. It is nothing new for admins here that a number of articles on the subject from the Balkans are spammed with content from the domain of politics and personal biases. The idea here is to push the information on Serbian irredentism by all means necessary, while making connections to modern-day disputed territory of Kosovo. I happen to see through all of it and I firmly belive that such content pushing is harming Wikipedia all over. My intention is and was to have quailty content, some editors just do not know how to deal with people who strongly disagree and give proper arguments, after all it is a joint effort, or at least in my book.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "spam filth" has been supported by four editors against you alone, some of those editors have even asked you to not cast aspersions or make assumptions about other editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. Please do not search for affirmation in the masses. That is what soccer fans do, not intellectuals and - it a logical mistake. Do not try to manipulate other people because, for starters, it is not polite. The former dispute with other editors was not over the content which is reported. It is only natural to have disputes when editing tricky subjects. cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would use this chance to present the quote from the latest edition of The Signpost:  any organised and determined group – state or otherwise – (could) attempt to strategically change the content of Wikipedia over a long span of time. They (could) create and support large groups of people to join its open community ... and actually use the processes that exist to change both the content that Wikipedia hosts and the policies that govern it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Interview That is happening in this case and I would invite any active members to keep an eye on this small and somewhat active group.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal on Sadko's talk page recommending some concessions to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input . Meanwhile, Sadko is adding again content without consensus on another article, without addressig issues raised by 3 editors (one of them me) . Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply not true, which can be checked on the TP. Added content was agreed upon and is well sourced.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: To avoid a block for edit warring, User:Sadko has removed his assurance that he would continue to revert. He has also agreed to make no more edits at Old Serbia, Matija Zmajević or List of destroyed heritage unless he first obtains consensus in his favor on a talk page. Though this concession allows the complaint to be closed, it does not rule out further action if reverts continue on other Serbia-related articles. My discussion with Sadko was at User talk:Sadko. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your input . Your offer to Sadko is a good one, that can put an end to the problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Stevenbfg reported by User: Lado85 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 714474887 by 92.108.91.218 (talk) There was no victor as it was a draw."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 738516469 by GeoRugby (talk)I'm getting sick of having to change this back. A draw is NOT a win."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 831068040 by Lado85 (talk) Georgia did not "win" the trophy in 2013 but left a note explaining how Georgia still retained the trophy. The 2018 winner was not reversed as per source so removed point about this."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 924379728 by Lado85 (talk)"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] "/* ‎Draw: new section"

Comments:

User:Stevenbfg permanently reverts edits without giving reliable source. I wrote a couple of sources, and opened discussion on talk page (Talk:Antim_Cup), but he continues reverting my edits. Lado85 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would take a look at the User: Lado85's talk page, he has a bad history of edit warring. The sources he provided are not in any shape or form reliable. Particularly this one he just presented (http://www.rugby-encyclopedie.com/Pays/Competitions_internationales/Antim_cup.htm). This "source" uses wikipedia as its own source. He also has a history of making edits on the same Antim Cup page without proper citation. Here he tried to claim Romania's win in 2017 as a "technical defeat" and therefore a win to Georgia without any citation from World Rugby or Rugby Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antim_Cup&oldid=841400938). I am more than happy for an admin to take a look into this as I am reverting blatant vandalism.
 * Stevenbfg (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The " "Georgia 2013" inscription on cup proofs that Georgia wins a cup in 2013 (Antim Cup). But you are ignoring this, because this is proof that you are wrong. Lado85 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I already told you, there is a difference between "winning" the cup and "retaining" the cup. Georgia retained the cup as the cup goes the current holder in the event of a draw (which I left a clear note explaining on the article) but it is completely misleading to readers to say that Georgia won a 9-9 draw. Especially when you claim Georgia have 12 wins when they infact have just 11 wins over Romania in Antim Cup games. Like I said, we'll get an admin to look into this considering you wanted to escalate this further.
 * Stevenbfg (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didnt' say Georgia have 12 wins. They have 12 cups. Lado85 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Lado85 is warned. If you want to claim that Georgia is the 'winner' of a match that ends with a 9-9 score you need an extremely good source. Consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union if you are not convinced. For another example to look at, the Calcutta Cup page uses 'holder' rather than 'winner' as a column heading, which is a way to avoid this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained this on talk page - There is another rules in Calcutta Cup. On Calcutta Cup you can see a "drawn match" inscription in years when match ends with draw - Calcutta cup. On Antim Cup there is "Georgia 2013" inscription, what means that Georgia wins the cup in 2013 - Antim Cup. Why are you ignoring this? I didn't say that Georgia wins a matchs. When match end with draw cup goes to current holder. Please see the article in another languages. In all of them Georgia have 12 cups. Winning match and winning cup is different things. There is "Cup Winner" column, not "Match Winner". Lado85 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it has Georgia 2013 on it. Because they retained the cup (not the same as winning). Although I think this point has been lost on you. You've been warned now so give it up. Stevenbfg (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 924082504 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) you are at 3RR. I suggest you use the talk page and PROVIDE A DECENT RATIONALE FOR KEEPING THE BOX"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) to last version by SchroCat"
 * 3)  "No rationale given. It's still an excessive piece of nonsense"
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by 2A01:4C8:140C:7443:6CF7:CB61:F457:1EA2 (talk): Not a typo, is it? (TW)"
 * 5)  "Really not needed - too excessive and much is tangential to his notability"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated reverts of long-standing content with no discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not 4RR - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually 5 reverts in 24 hours, and still no discussion on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. How is number 5 a revert? It’s a bold edit. No 4. Was reverting sub-standard work, not part of edit warring. You are at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version... Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an argument to be made that #5 is a revert, not just a "bold edit", as it removed material that had been added by other editors. #4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it. Notwithstanding these policy niceties, I think you are not behaving well in this battle, . I'll leave it to another administrator as to whether you should be sanctioned, but Wally is correct that you should have discussed your removal of the infobox and not reverted the restoration of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Number 5 is in no way a revert: removing older information is not reverting - that is re-writing the whole policy as no edits could ever be made on any existing text without being accused of edit warring. No, I haven’t been to the talk page as I’m in the process of cooking supper. Wally is at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the status quo ante. When SchroCat is done with supper, he can seek consensus on the talk page. BRD. If that happens, i see no need to sanction anyone.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS. AFAIK there is no such threshold of "necessity" for the inclusion of one, meaning the removal was a subjective cosmetic improvement. BOLD edits are still fine in these circumstances, but when your rationale is not policy-based, you can't turn around and demand a policy-based rationale for the reversion. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS": nope. See MOS:INFOBOXUSE ("neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and their use and basis is NOT cosmetic. To remove one is NOT cosmetic: when something is as misleading as that is, cosmetics have nothing to do with it - it's about not misleading the readers and ensuring they get the right information that is supported by context and nuance. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not saying an infobox is mandatory, just that it's a valid, fundamental element of an article. Perhaps you did not have cosmetics or aesthetics in mind, but that was the impression I got by you deleting it as "unnecessary", but that's all irrelevant. As you say, it's neither mandated or prohibited by default, but a matter for consensus, which is exactly what I'm getting at. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a "fundamental element of an article", that falsehood exists only if you like them. No article is born with an IB.  They have to be added - which is the bold edit. Anything that comes after adheres to the rest of the BRD cycle. Therefore, Schrocat was right to adopt the "R" and Wally should've discussed. That is how BRD works.  Anything else is disruptive.     Cassianto Talk  18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read my words, I specifically said it's not mandatory, just that it's a "valid, fundamental element". I say that because it's described as an "element" of an article in MOS: section 1.2. ~Swarm~  {sting} 20:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read them, and I don't dispute your use of "mandatory", indeed they're not. But again, an infobox is not a fundamental element of any article.  Cassianto Talk  20:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, I don't even know what exactly we're arguing about. We agree that it's optional, we agree that it's valid, we agree that it's an "element", so presumably you're held up on the word "fundamental", which seems a bit nitpicky and pedantic. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If SchroCat was the "R", then this is indeed 4RR. Regardless, since all of the text had to be added, by this definition literally any removal (or replacement) would be a revert... This is all getting very strange &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wally should've been blocked after they failed to discuss. The reverting would've then stopped. Either enforce BRD or don't have it at all.   Cassianto Talk  19:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From my read there are 4 reverts in 24 hours. First here, second here, third here, and finally forth here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See Bbb23's comment: "#4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it". If you want to enable nationalistic warriors (check out the rest of that IP's edits), then that's your call, and if you really, really want to block a long-term editor in such a technicality, then feel free. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say both you and Bbb23 are being generous in assessing it as 'good faith disruptive editing', I'd write that off as simple vandalism. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved, and not wishing to be involved, but I'm hoping / could clarify for me (on my talk page if preferred). Since literally 2007 I've been under the impression that making the same edit 4 times in an article in a 24 hour period gets you blocked, and that's what I tell an awful lot of newbies. My understanding is that it doesn't matter whether your edit was the "bold" or the "revert" in the BRD cycle (and that it's doubly bad if yours was the "bold" edit, i.e. the initial edit that was contested). Where is that wrong? According to the interpretation I'm seeing here, for any dispute with two editors, the burden is actually on the "revert" side to find consensus against the new edits, lest they run into [what is defined here as] a 3RR violation (i.e. the 4th time someone makes their bold edit it's not a violation, but the 4th time it's reverted, it is). Now, obviously it should never get to four reverts, especially when non-newbies are involved, but what's the right thing here? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The initial edit doesn't count. Only actual reverts count towards 3RR. It's important to note that 3RR is nothing but a procedural enforcement brightline. But, yes, in practice, this does indeed mean that the "R" in BRD inherently has a first-mover disadvantage as they will hit 3RR first. The "R" may be the reasonable one in the edit war, or the "R" may be stonewalling a good edit for a bad reason. They may deserve to hit 3RR first, or they may not. But the whole point is that we don't care about the merits of the content dispute, because edit warring is not permissible no matter how "right" you are. If you're a good faith, reasonable "R" who's trying to discuss, and your "B" is refusing to be reasonable and discuss, and is instead choosing to edit war, don't get baited into a 3RR vio, but report the situation here. If you explain that a user is edit warring over your objections and refusing to discuss, you can request a block. If we don't block them, we will likely at least restore the stable version and full protect the article, forcing them to discuss. If you let them trip you over 3RR and then report you, you'll probably be the one catching a one-sided procedural block. We're not enforcement robots who only care about 3RR vios, in fact I really wish we saw more users coming here before hitting 3RR.  ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most disappointing that someone can edit war to install a preferred version and the burden is on others to argue for the status quo. That seems contrary to the way just about everything else works around here. But sure, I appreciate that 3RR is about any revert, not necessarily the same material -- I suppose I just extrapolated from that and BRD a common sense conclusion: "forcing your preference four times in one day should obviously result in a block barring the usual extreme exceptions". Meh. No need to belabor this. Again, wasn't trying to get involved in this case. Was inquiring about a different case here and took a second because this challenged my understanding of how things work. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that we should not just blindly screen for 3RR violations and treat edit wars with common sense, that's exactly what I'm getting at. But when you imply that we place a burden on the reverter, that misses the point. The burden is shared equally. Neither side is favored inherently. That's an overarching principle. ~Swarm~  {sting} 19:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Common sense says you can make a bold edit regarding a controversial element of an article and make said edit four times when it's repeatedly contested? I'm not challenging what you're saying is the case regarding the rules -- clarification is indeed what I was seeking. I'm just disappointed in the system that this is an acceptable scenario, and that the set-up of 3RR does indeed put the burden on the reverter, contrary to BRD (which, granted, is not policy). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you're not challenging me, we're just talking. I get where you're coming from, but like I said, 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. You should think of it as an emergency procedural backstop, and not interpret an ideal from it. Because the actual underlying ideals of EW policy is BRD. It's unfortunate that 3RR has the unintentional consequence of creating a paradoxical contradictory system in practice, because I think we're supposed to deal with edit wars fairly and with common sense and reason before they ever hit 3RR. Instead, nobody ever comes here until there's a 3RR vio for us to rubber-stamp. ~Swarm~  {sting} 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, when issues are brought to this noticeboard before 3RR is determined to have been violated, then no action is taken and the situation is allowed to continue deteriorating, as was the case in this report. I get that users who have been editing a long time have friends and are given a longer rope, but it certainly makes newer editors feel like their is nothing they can do for recourse when they are treated poorly. For example, look at the article talk page comments from the editor in this dispute, which took place in between when the report was filed and when you made your no violation decision, but which you did not address in your closure. I don't think this situation reflects positively on the efforts of administrators to improve situations or encourages editors to bring disputes here for assistance. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately when sub-standard work is defended to a ridiculous degree to ignore any decent level of standards, we end up here. Swarm, Rhododendrites, Bbb23 and PackMecEng are not my friends who will rush to my defence in these matters (see the interaction tool to see the various levels of work I have done with any of them I the last); they are my Wikicolleagues in the same way they are your Wikicolleagues. They are the people (all administrators?) who are busy dealing with activity on WP. It's not their role or their habit to rush to defend certain individuals. You, on the other hand with to keep things like Guinness's military career in the IB, ensuring his two years of service in the RNVR is given far more weight than his seventy-year acting career. Perhaps, rather than just go into automatic knee-jerk reversion mode again, you read, listen and think before acting. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is a misnomer. Nobody abides by it. What's the point of it?   Cassianto Talk  18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's neither policy nor guideline, and shouldn't be used as a stick. It may make sense sometimes, but a lot of times it doesn't. Doug Weller  talk 19:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was policy or a guideline.  Cassianto Talk  20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The creation of Alec Guinness on stage and screen article, would appear to have solved the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In the light of Wallyfromdilbert making this edit during the edit war, I have alerted them to the WP:ARBINFOBOX2 discretionary sanctions. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Dindin911 reported by User:Sportsfan77777 (Result:48 hours )
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:

The user is attempting to change the first sentence of the lead in a way that goes against WP:ETHNICITY, which has been explained to the user. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - user apparently used an anon IP address to continue their effort at the article in question. Fyunck(click) (talk)

The seal for Montebello, CA is blue.
On Montebello, CA's official website, the seal for the city in blue. Upload the better, blue version seal to Wikipedia.

https://www.cityofmontebello.com/council-agendas.html

https://www.cityofmontebello.com/images/logos/montebello-logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan Indian doll (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum, but ✅. Tagging as for the bot.  ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:92.239.205.101 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP belongs to Sweet Science Fan. I have previously left a comment on their talk page and attempted to start a discussion on the article's talk page (as shown above) yet the user refuses to give an explanation as to why they keep reverting a constructive edit, besides "he keeps changing all my edits". The only issue this user seems to have is that I’ve changed something they have previously added weeks/months prior, and they appear to be claiming some kind of ownership of the content through their needless reverts.

My edit is constructive and logical. Dereck Chisora has been a professional for over a decade, he was an amateur for less than four years. Dereck Chisora has won multiple regional titles and challenged for a major world championship as a professional, he has won a single national championship as an amateur. It only makes sense to mention what he is most known for first (his less notable amateur achievement is still mentioned). I removed the mention of the WBA and WBO regional titles as they are generally disregarded by the boxing world and insignificant when mentioned next to British, Commonwealth and European titles. I include that he has won multiple regional titles and list a few of the most notable, with dates (British, Commonwealth and European). The whole point of the lead is to give an overview of the subjects most notable topics, not a list of every single minor achievement. My entire edit makes the lead section consistent with literally every other current and regularly updated boxer's page. Again, IP/User refuses to give an explanation as to why they revert, because they have none. Unlike the user, my intention is not to engage in an edit war, it is simply to attempt to maintain consistency across boxing pages. If the user had a valid explanation or engaged in a discussion to resolve the matter instead of spitting their dummy out then these pointless edit wars wouldn’t arise. —  2 . O . Boxing  16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing needlessly reporting me over and over while childishly reverting my edits based on the same repetitive criteria only he practices continuously is becoming very tedious and downright boring indeed, if by attempting to start a discussion he means his delightful quotes such as "What are your reasons? "Mummyyyy the bad man is changing things I added, can I have a tissue please? I’m going to cwy again" and "That’s actually the reason, isn’t it? I’ve changed something that you have added at some point, and you’re throwing your toys out the pram because it’s your greatest life achievement. Hence no explanation for constantly reverting. Grow up, kiddo". Also he claims that I refuse to give an explanation for my edits which is completely false I just simply don't wish to repeat myself when my reasons haven't changed from when I stated them originally. I find the statement that I appear to be claiming some kind of ownership of the content through their needless reverts rather ironic as anyone else looking in from the outside could say the exact same thing about him. It's very easy for him to say he is simply attempting to maintain consistency across boxing pages when it is only him making the changes to the pages he is referring to in the first place. The last time he reported me he was warned for forever reverting edits and clearly has not learned from this. Despite the fact it is not my decision I feel only a block for him sadly is the only solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet Science Fan (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Since my original edit on 28 October, the user's only explanation has been:

"Why do you not just stop reverting all my edits and leave them be, surely if ANYONE else on wikipedia shares your views then they will too revert them also. Stop taking it upon yourself to remove my content. apologies for undoing my own edit I merely wanted to write this message to you in the summary"

This was an edit summary from one of their many reverts

Seems to me somebody is taking direct ownership of the content. As for the warning, we were both warned (Sweet Science Fan's second edit warring warning within a matter of days), and I was advised to bring the matter up on the WikiProject Boxing talk page, which I did, and not to revert the edits as it would breach the 3RR rule, which I adhered to. It seems the matter is so trivial and petty (which it is) that nobody is interested. If one person is reverting edits for the reason stated above, and nobody else has an issue with the initial edit except this one person (demonstrated by the lack of interest in the subject on talk pages), then only one person can be at fault. Again, I’ve stated my valid reasons for a constructive edit while the user has no valid reason except "stop reverting all my edits and leave them be" and "stop taking it upon yourself to remove my content". — 2 . O . Boxing  17:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for six months for edit-warring and for abusive logged out edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I presume I’m yet again to refrain from changing the last revert back to my initial edit as it would breach the 3RR rule? As I said, I don’t want to engage in edit wars but when nobody can give me an actual reason as to why I shouldn’t make the lead section consistent with all others, then I’ll edit the page again at some point. — 2 . O . Boxing  18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for laying out your reasoning for the changes at the talk page. It would behoove to address the substance of the edits at the talk page, citing reasons (policy, project consistency, etc.) why the changes shouldn't be made in their discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:108.208.76.251 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Historicity */ reporting this because of false information. The information portrayed the story of joseph in a way that it is *factially* not true, siting non-credible sources, and worded it in a way to make it seem that scholars of the torah discount the story as well. This is all based on JEDP theory which is a false theory that has been refuted many times by many experts, and critical scholars are moving away from it."
 * 2)  "/* Text analysis */ the content given was portrayed in a way that credit the story of joseph as a fictional story and making claims such as "most biblical scholars" hold to the view that it was not written until 5th century BCE, which is false and NT authors did not believe that either, nor did Jesus. To make this claim and then improperly source it is a clear reason for removal. The JEDP theory has been disputed time and again and most critical scholars are slowly backing away from such view."
 * 3)  "/* Text analysis */"
 * 4)  "/* Historicity */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Joseph (Genesis). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joseph (Genesis). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

No resolution initiatives needed. It's vandalism that fails WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for edit warring and disruption. It appears that the IP user wants to make Wikipedia reflect a particular religious point of view. His comment on talk mentions 'antisupernatural bias'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Jamaru25 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user who has been introducing OR in various articles since they joined the project (their talk page speaks for itself) has been caught misrepresenting a source and lying about it. I don't know whether it's a CIR issue or something else, but they clearly have no respect for the WP policies. M.Bitton (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The user's most recent edit adds additional sources, so I hesitate to count it as a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What said. However,, that attempt at filing an edit warring report was a bit dickish. The bigger problem is that most of your sources are either to unreliable websites (seriously, this is a NO), and for those books you need page numbers. I cannot find your bread in Cooking at the Kasbah. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources (unreliable to begin with) support the following OR "recently have been known to Algeria and Tunisia" (which the user added). What about the fact that they misrepresented a source (which started this whole thing)? M.Bitton (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jamaru25 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at M'semen unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. Jamaru25 seems not to fully understand Wikipedia's sourcing policy. User:M.Bitton is reminded that their edits are not immune to 3RR enforcement, so they should stop before going past the limit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chuckstreet reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 925179327 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 925179044 by Bonadea (talk) Stop vandalizing this page. Your edits are disruptive. I posted on your talk page about it."
 * 3)  "More updates now that we're back on track. These are experiments. Join the conversation, constructive comments encouraged."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 925166214 by Station1 (talk) READ AND STOP POSTING THIS THREAD. YOU ARE HARASSING ME."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 925158447 by Calton (talk) You're not paying attention. Read the notice. The content that was deleted was slanderous of me and contained a fake post, and it was harassment of me. Do not modify or you will be guilty of the same harassment."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is removing valid talk page discussions with incorrect claims about "slander" and "forgery". Resolution attempts, falling on deaf ears, at User:Chuckstreet/help, User_talk:Bonadea, and User talk:Chuckstreet#November 2019. bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * for a combination of edit warring and tendentious editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Jude1313 reported by User:Israell (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Jude1313 has been quite erratic, yelling a lot at other editors (a lot of caps), accusing them of vandalism, bullying, harassment, edit warring, disruptive editing, making false statements, etc. when he has clearly engaged in such behaviour. As a matter of fact, he's just broken the three-revert rule on the Evan Chandler article (by making four reverts within 24 hours).

Other users such as Akhiljaxxn and TruthGuardians warned him not to edit war and Flyer22_Reborn asked him to follow due process, but he chose to ignore it all! (He even blanked his Talk Page. Here's a previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jude1313&diff=925078738&oldid=925077120 .)

On the Leaving Neverland article, he even tried to hide statements ("badly", "obsessive quest for success") made by Wade Robson himself! He made countless unsourced edits and refused to collaborate with other editors. Israell (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Jude1313 has just made even more reverts:

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

He's now made 7 reverts during a 24-hour period. He's also falsely accusing me of vandalizing, bullying (I was always polite to him and did not bully him in any way), etc. Israell (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Consecutive reverts made without any intervening edits by other editors count as a single revert.  But that's still four reverts in 24 hours.  Editor also alerted to BLP discretionary sanctions, considering that some of these people are still alive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Buhedyar reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:28, 8 November 2019
 * 2) 15:30, 8 November 2019
 * 3) 18:18, 8 November 2019
 * 4) 18:28, 8 November 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Buhedyar has now deleted the same sourced content four times in a few hours. Each times the content blanking was undone by a different user, so Buhedyar knew well there was no consensus. (In addition to the edit warring, the user also takes a very hostile tone towards all others, making repeated ad hominem arguments). Buhedyar has been repeatedly warn, both over edit warring and their general behavior towards other users (see talk page history as the user deletes all warnings). Jeppiz (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Buhedyar for disruption. More at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:RobBoy1 reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/924855468 was before the edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/924858127
 * 2) Special:Diff/924862914
 * 3) Special:Diff/925019569
 * 4) Special:Diff/925181348
 * 5) Special:Diff/925238627

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/925193889, also Emeraude did mention this. RobBoy1 has already been indefblocked on cawiki for edit warring the exact same thing on the exact same subject. RobBoy1 is also boring the photographer on Commons to death with the same old story over and over again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: does not apply. If this image would be removed from the article, it would be done by CommonsDelinker. Removing the image from the article here (unless it's a clear copyright violation or something, which this is not) is just importing Commons drama. - Alexis Jazz 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sridc reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Bold edit, fixing neutrality of intro paragraph. 1) Move feminist sources below to 'Description' section (inasmuch as it is not NPOV). b) Use Haidt's book to describe the synopsis."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 925118534 by Aquillion (talk) - This is not how I understand WP:BRD to work. You made a change, I reverted it (citing properly). Now it is time for you to address the many arguments I made on the talk page. Please do, thanks."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 925117894 by Aquillion (talk) - This was discussed in Talk. Ctrl+F "Evan Gerstmann""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 925107941 by Bacondrum (talk) -- They are verbatim quote from a reliable source. Your 'challenge' does not have any substance, was already addressed in the Talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 925105041 by Bacondrum (talk) - Discuss to establish consensus before reverting"
 * 6)  "Wikipedia is not the place to display one's beliefs. Don't replace verbatim quote sourced directly from a reliable source. If you have an alternative source that's reliable, provide it in the Talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:3RR violation on Call-out culture */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Here is a bunch of discussion, as well as older discussions on talk.


 * Comments:

After giving them a warning, I realized they were much further over the WP:3RR than I realized at first, so I figured I ought to submit this. Regarding the most recent revision, note that while it tries to be a rewrite, it still removes the contested text and removes contested sources from the lead; note particular the removal of the words perceived to be problematic, which was one of Sridc's main objections and had just been restored by another editor. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't find this report to be made in good faith at all. And you failed to mention that these edits are currently under dispute: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I'm not really aware of any revert limit in 24 hours, and it appears to me that you are using my ignorance against me. The User:Bacondrum (3 of the reverts above) have been edit-warring and I reported them today. I think third parties should take all these context into account. Both and myself have observed tremendous behavioural roadblock to progress in Call-out culture (which once used to contain substantial content that has since been deleted). - Sridc (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But you were aware after I pointed out to you on your talk page, and you still refused to self-revert. Yes, your edits have met with resistance, but you're attempting drastic rewrites of the lead, removing or downplaying high-quality academic sources and so on.  It's to be expected that people would object!  You also cited WP:BRD at me earlier, and were able to take people you were in a dispute with to multiple noticeboards, which shows a reasonable amount of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies. --Aquillion (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a lie. You never reported me for edit warring. Sridc is WP:NOTHERE, of that I am certain. Bacondrum (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I may have been a little harsh on Sridc. I think he is just new and needs to read up on relevant guidelines. A caution may be in order? Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sweet Science Fan reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is the third time Sweet Science Fan has been reported for reverting the same content, with no explanation, in the past 2 weeks. We both received a warning for the first report and for the second, Sweet Science Fan received a second warning (three in total if you count the warning the User received from a dispute on the Sam Sexton page) and had his associated IP banned for edit warring and abusive behaviour. As stated in the previous report, the User's only explanation has been (through this edit summary ): "Why do you not just stop reverting all my edits and leave them be, surely if ANYONE else on wikipedia shares your views then they will too revert them also. Stop taking it upon yourself to remove my content. apologies for undoing my own edit I merely wanted to write this message to you in the summary". I left a message on the User's talk page to discuss the issue on the article's talk page as shown in the diff provided in the report, User's answer was "just leave the page alone", as shown here. As you can see in the diffs provided in the report, his reply to my comment in an edit summary was "report me again". This is beyond tedious now. The User refuses to give an explanation of the constant and needless reverts of a constructive edit and refuses to engage in a discussion. I’ll use the User's own words against them from a comment they left on the previous report: "Despite the fact it is not my decision I feel only a block for him sadly is the only solution." — 2 . O . Boxing  00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Neptune's Trident reported by User:Lordtobi (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 925230452 by Lordtobi (talk) Undoing unnecessary edit, these links were corrected."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 925229683 by Lordtobi (talk) These are the correct links, these do not need to be changed."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 925229465 by Lordtobi (talk) These are the correct links."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user's main activity recently has been to "fix" redirects by making piped links of them. While not a crime in itself, the user disregards any mentions of WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, which discourage this behavior. I reverted them on many occasions, pointing to these guidelines, but often got reverted (against WP:BRD) with either no comment or the user citing that links had been "corrected" (despite the linked target article not having changed). I left messages explaining these issues on their talk page at least three times in the past three months, with my messages promptly being removed by them without comment. The user has been blocked for both edit warring and disruptive editing before. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is at least a 3RR violation and the user has been blocked many times before. I have left a note for User:JJMC89 who issued the last block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was attempting to correct the links to another page from the Hotline Miami article, the engine listing in the infobox. I was correcting Game Maker 7 to the listing of GameMaker Studio. I was not trying to be disruptive, I was just putting in the correct link. I apologize if this was disruptive yet my intention was just to simply put up a correct link. Again, my sincere apologies, thank you. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There was nothing incorrect before; proper, unpiped redirects were used and functioned as intended. I left messages explaining this on your talk page three times, and you removing these messages would signal that you at least read them, but your continuously disruptive behavior says otherwise. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - While this is a lame edit war, I also view it as willful tendentious/disruptive editing as opposed to a good faith content dispute. Tobi provided Neptune with a direct policy that said his edit was wrong, both in edit summaries and on Neptune's talk page, yet Neptune continued edit warring, even blanking Tobi's message without reply. It's easy to say "I thought I was fixing the link", but not when you've been directly shown the policy that says don't do that. And here he's still completely ignoring the relevant policy point. Thus I think JJMC's recommendation of six months is appropriate. I would be inclined to indef with an SO offer which, functionally, would be about the same. ~Swarm~  {sting} 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – Long term disruption and failure to communicate. See the above comment by User:Swarm. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that Neptune’s Trident will follow Wikipedia policy in the future and will wait for a negotiated outcome in case of dispute. If they promise not to constantly delete all messages on their own talk that would help. --EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Minhle20002013 reported by User:Find bruce (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  no edit summary
 * 2)  "The article clearly said it is theoretically possible to appeal to the Privy Council until today under section 74 of the Constitution."
 * 3)  no edit summary
 * 4)  "Any proof that they are 'dead letters'?. Constitution is still the constitution."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: New section "November 2019"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: New section "Appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council"

Comments:

Edit warring, not in breach of 3RR. 3rd edit came after discusssion raised on talk page in which user was pinged. 4th edit came after edit warring warning was posted on user's talk page.

User was already aware of the edit warring policy from 2 stale warnings for edit warring August 2014 & February 2018. --Find bruce (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Minhle20002013 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's further reverts
 * 1) "Different version of the text from my original version". No discussion on the article's talk page.


 * is this the appropriate way to escalate or am I meant to file a further report ? --Find bruce (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Minhle20002013 is now blocked 24 hours for continuing to revert past the original closure. --EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Dudley Miles reported by User:Doktorbuk (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

First time ever reporting someone. Dudley has broken WP:BIAS and WP:3RR

User aware of my reporting of them.

doktorb wordsdeeds 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)}}


 * I have not broken 3RR as I only reverted three times. doktorb has broken 3RR as they reverted four times today, although on some occasions they changed the page manually in order to conceal the revert. They also misleadingly label controversial changes as minor edits.


 * For discussion of the issue see User talk:Dudley Miles.  Dudley Miles (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * --Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the report format slightly, but it still has no diffs. We still have Doktorbuk and Dudley Miles reverting one another since 2 November with no other participants, so blocking both might have been an option. In my opinion, both editors are running a risk if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - The diffs are not necessary as the EW is very straightforward. I have restored the WP:STABLE version and full protected the page. There is quite literally no reason that both parties should not be blocked for edit warring, but I am cutting them a break in recognition of the fact that they're two longstanding editors with clean block logs. ~Swarm~  {sting} 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You've got it wrong! Now the article shows one candidature from one party: that's bias against opponents in the run up to an election. It's against election law! Change it to my version, and quickly, because no candidate is better than promotion of one against all others. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Nov 8, 23:00 UTC
 * 2)  Nov 9, 00:21 UTC
 * 3)  Nov 9, 15:13 UTC "Guidelines aren't rules or policies."
 * 4)  Nov 9, 15:16 UTC "It's not edit-warring to revert an unconstructive edit."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fan4Life was brought here one month ago and two weeks ago but has continued to engage in edit-warring behavior. A few days ago, Fan4Life re-engaged in a sparring match over an infobox image The current problem of edit-warring is a continuation of Fan4Life's usual style of interaction. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to block but haven't decided the best duration. Please link to the edit-warring reports themselves in the archives rather than the notices.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This user as a very long-term history of edit-warring, especially at articles relating to Ariana Grande. It's high-time administrative action is taken. Maybe a topic-ban, as well?  livelikemusic    talk!  02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , here are the most recent AN3 appearances by Fan4Life: November 26 with "no vio", and October 5 with "stale" result. The user has been observed for years to have ownership issues and the unwillingness to act collegially with regard to Ariana Grande topics. There was also a period of block evasion in 2017, using the German IPs 87.166.163.43, 87.166.184.156, 87.166.129.25 (see User:87.166.129.25_reported_by_User:IVORK_(Result:_Protected).) Hope that helps with the decision. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll agree not to edit Ariana Grande and related articles for a period of time if it means I don't get blocked. Fan4Life (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the best forum to discuss the details of a topic ban. I'd like your thoughts and those of and  as to the duration of the ban and its breadth, e.g., does it cover just the articles, their Talk pages, anywhere on the project?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the articles, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to contribute to discussions. I think more than a week would be excessive, blocks and topic bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Fan4Life (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the last block was for a two-week duration for the same reason, something longer would not be excessive in this case. This would be the user's sixth block for edit-warring; surely, that has to account for something. Surely, they are problematic when it comes to Grande and articles related to her—which includes artists who have collaborated with her, etc.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you're going to offer to take a voluntary TBAN in lieu of what's looking to be a lengthy block, that means, to me, a real TBAN, meaning from making any edits about the topic, broadly construed, for the standard six months. Saying you'll limit yourself to the talk page for a week when your standard escalating block would have been longer than that is a bit insulting to the offer. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)q
 * No offense, but it's likely their attempt to avoid a block and a semi-topic ban, to immediately return and resume their behaviour, which they have done before in the past.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything said above. A standard topic ban was what I was thinking as well, and Fan4Life's idea of a reasonable topic ban was preposterous. Nor am I willing to negotiate with Fan4Life under threat of block. I also note that after Fan4Life's last comment here, they again edited Sweetener World Tour and were reverted. I have therefore blocked Fan4Life for three months. @Swarm, if you believe my block too long, you are free to shorten it. Thanks for your input.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Daveyoder reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result:Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Probable Sock as well IP:86.250.153.213 VViking Talk Edits 19:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:C10:7760:BD66:1DA6:2114:AF7C reported by User: Bueller 007 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&diff=925346783&oldid=925346293
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&diff=925347493&oldid=925347039

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:C10:7760:BD66:1DA6:2114:AF7C&oldid=925346421

Comments:

Edit warring but not 3RR. Also requested in the edit summaries that user use the talk page.

From the Accused: I added the section "criminal history" to the article. Bueller 007 proceeded to delete large chunks of the edits, noting that the citations used were "shitty," his word. He also erroneously claimed that the sources didn't address the article content. I then reworked the entire section--again, a section I created and wrote--and he immediately removed those edits. I undid his vandalism, and now I'm the one being accused of "warring"? Is this a joke? Bueller 007 is using Wikipedia to satisfy his own depraved urge to defend a serial rapist and murderer. I don't know where that comes from, but it's clearly on display here. Don't take my word for it. Review the edit history and compare my explanations to his. What's going on here is plain to any sentient being. I urge you also to review the Talk Page on the said article, where you'll see a more detailed description of this issue and Bueller 007's repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C10:7760:BD66:1DA6:2114:AF7C (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The filer, User:Bueller 007, says that is a slow edit war but such a claim needs good evidence. The IP editor has given their rationale on the article talk page but Bueller 007 has never posted there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 925702214 by Dorsetonian (talk) Stop engaging in an edit war.  You do it again and you will be breaking the third.  Follow the rules."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 925696555 by Dorsetonian (talk)  it does have meaning and it does make sense, why? Because it is true, just because it doesn't mean your agenda, doesn't change historical fact.  if you wish to debate, you are welcome to message me, until then, stop changing information."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 925680103 by Sus scrofa (talk)  I did take to talk, make instead of someone removing added information, they should take it to talk."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on StG 44. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on StG 44. (TW)"


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

I have attempted to correct misleading information on a weapon. Several individuals for motivations unknown have taken issue with this. I have not engaged in an editing war, they have. I added information, they remove with no just cause. I put it back, again they remove with no just cause. If we want information to be taken seriously, it starts with the truth, not people's opinion. Weaponcheck (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * You are absolutely engaging in edit warring and I would absolutely endorse administrative sanctions against you. "Truth" is not a defense for the repeated submission of content disputed by other editors, especially when you seem to be editorialising in the article rather than providing properly sourced material. And, it's obvious you've made the same disruptive edits prior to creating your user account here and here and here and a different editorial here. Why does it require a committee of people to force you to use a bloody talk page? Additionally, the unsourced content you keep adding contains poor grammar and typography. Other editors are not required to have to clean up your sloppy edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:65.155.187.2 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: 48 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Typo"
 * 2)  "Typos"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo and added content"
 * 4)  "Added content and fixed typos"
 * 5)  "Added content and fixed typos"
 * 1)  "Added content and fixed typos"


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


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

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Billiekhalidfan reported by User:Obsuser (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/925739418/925739813


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: see edits and edit summaries in article history between following revisons: Special:Diff/925729132/925739813


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edits and edit summaries in user's talk page history between following revisons: Special:Diff/925738879/925742049


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/925739379/925739605 (resulted in swearing by user warned and proposed for block: Special:Diff/925739700/925739961; bad language and ignorance too again: Special:Diff/925740087/925740202)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 reported by User:Lightburst (Result: no action, self reverted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has had previous 1rr limits
 * Diff
 * Diff


 * I do not plan to block ; they're a relatively new editor, and they stopped reverting after the first edit warring notice was placed on their talk page. I plan to block for 1 week for edit warring unless one of two things happens: either (a) he self reverts as soon as he returns to editing, or (b) he can point to a clear, unambiguous, non-borderline consensus that his wording was agreed to previously. I plan to block  for 1 week for following Hijiri's edits just to try to get him in trouble (Lightburst has nothing to do with the article in question, and has a recent past history of conflict with Hijiri.  Obviously just parked on Hijiri's contribs page.). This kind of battleground behavior needs to be nipped in the bud.  I've had some success previously blocking for 1 month in such situations, but I'll start with 1 week. If I see any kind of reciprocal battleground behavior from Hijiri88, I plan to block him for a week (or an additional week, if the edit warring block happens).  Any objections from other admins? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I sometimes follow collegially follow Dream Focus - and he has edited the article recently. I planned to edit on the article this morning, however I noticed the edit warring. I did not want to start editing the article in the middle of this battle. In addition I have recently participated in Japanese discussions. Here. As an aside: it seems rather unfair to punish me while I am an editor in good standing who is trying to protect the project. I have not followed the editor at all, and I am sure you will find no evidence of that. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be true. Dream Focus last edited the article and talk page about a year and a half ago.  Please point out something in the last day or two in Dream Focus' contribs that has anything to do with this article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Yes I got my articles mixed up. I am sure I was probably checking Hijiri88 contributions this time, but only because he talks about me and regularly. I have tried to keep my nose clean. I recently saw him posting on talk pages trying to get me blocked and trying to get others to co-sign his efforts. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Like here on Scotty Wong's talk, His own talk on SportingFlyer's talk. Also used my actual name recently, and I had to ask him to stop. Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the point in a block for Lightburst for HOUNDING--and a block for Hijiri for holding on to that stick too long. I don't buy Lightburst's story at all, and even if I did, this isn't good manners. "Ah let me report on this guy that I hate." The note on Scottywong's talk page doesn't actually mention Lightburst, though they are mentioned elsewhere, but Scottywong did have a few choice words for them, about stickness. I haven't looked at the edit warring, which might be of minor importance here, relatively speaking. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Drmies and Floq I certainly respect both of you as admins. You probably both know I tried to get a IBAN with the editor twice but there was no luck at ANI (floq you even closed one). An IBAN was successful with Dream Focus and the editor - to stop disruption. A WP:BLOCK is to stop disruption to the project and a lengthy block is more like a punishment which is not the purpose of WP:BLOCK. The project is disrupted with situations like this. So I would ask that we explore a two way IBAN. In the mean time I respect whatever decision you make in regard to me reporting this edit war. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure you already know the editor has had 6 IBANs imposed on him in the past, including 4 that are still active. I have never had one, but I would prefer one with this editor. You can see I have no other friction with any other editors so you should have no concerns about me going forward, the other editor claims to have about 4-5 harassers. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to stop interacting with Hijiri, then stop interacting with Hijiri. He did not trick you into filing this report; you did it solely to get him in trouble.  If you stop interacting with him, and he continues bringing you up in conversation, he can be blocked for battleground behavior.  But in this very request for a 2 way iban, when you know I'm already thinking about a block for battleground behavior, you just can't help throwing pebbles.  I cannot unilaterally impose ibans, but I can do this, which can be functionally equivalent: starting now, if I see you or User:Hijiri88 continue the feud, I will block whoever is continuing it for a week for battleground behavior.  Second occurrence, 1 month.  Everyone else is pretty much tired of this. Let me emphasize... STARTING NOW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to the matter Floquenbeam; and apologies for bringing this here. I will leave the project if that is best. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've unclosed because part of this is still active; Hijiri really did edit war, regardless of who reported him (the edit warring was with a different user, not Lightburst). I wasn't planning on using a "fruit of the poisoned tree" philosophy here. I've told Hijiri above that he needs to self revert, OR show there is a previous clear consensus for his position on the talk page, OR get blocked for a week.  Now, to be clear: Ed, if you disagree with this approach and think that's unnecessary, I'm happy to defer to your judgement.  But it looks like you thought that I thought it was resolved. If you reclose I'll assume you think it should be closed with no further action, and happily respect that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted, but I would appreciate clarification of what you think would have been the appropriate course of action here. I don't feel that it is inappropriate to revert back to the (consensus-backed) status quo while requesting the other user engage in talk page discussion. I actually stopped for several hours, until I thought the edit war was over (the editor who instigated the edit war had stopped editing as soon as he was told by someone other than me that edit-warring blocks were a thing). Do you think it is appropriate that a poorly sourced version of the article remain live just because you think that reverting back after a dispute has apparently been resolved qualifies as edit-warring? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So this can be closed, I'll answer this on your talk page in a little bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked Martinthewriter to self-revert his 4th revert. However he seems to be ignoring my request. I think it is fair to self-revert their 4th revert by each side. Could you tell him to do so? If he refused, blocking him is a possible option.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to do it that way. It doesn't matter too much which version it stays at while discussion is ongoing. The important thing is the new editor has now been informed how 3RR works, it isn't being gamed, and the edit war has stopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Randolph Duke reported by User:Buffs (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Normally, I don't go out of my way to note the problems a user has made elsewhere, but this is an exception. "Randolph Duke" (not his real name) is a graduate of the University of Texas, the archrival of Texas A&M. He openly admits on twitter he's trolling and introducing lies with the intent to defame Texas A&M:. This same person's filed numerous frivolous/harassing lawsuits and is not interested in collegial discussion or building consensus:. He has also been blocked for edit warring in the past. As such, I request an indef block until such time as WP:NOTHERE no longer applies and he understands that edit warring/trolling/other associated behavior is not acceptable on WP. Buffs (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 17:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * see Trading Places: "so you're like Randy Jackson from the Jackson5, right?", etc. ——  SN  54129  17:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * *keeps his eyes peeled for Mortimer* Buffs (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Classic :D  This guy's seat on the exchange has well and truly been put up for sale  ——  SN  54129  18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * *Makes some orange juice from frozen concentrate* Buffs (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note Redacted info is in regards to this user's actual identity (one he prominently mentions on Twitter...though he's now banned from it). I understand that this link violates WP:OUTING, so I don't object to its removal on those grounds. However, he prominently displays it and openly says who he is, so...that's hardly "outing"...
 * That said, I oppose in the strongest of terms the restoration of this person's editing rights in the future under any circumstances. I have substantial evidence of IRL behavior that can provide the necessary links in private to ArbCom/Other as necessary but ONLY as permitted under Wikipedia policies. Buffs (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2001:569:FCF7:6C00:901C:55AD:C307:D9F5 reported by User:Upsidedown Keyboard (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "plot does not require sources"
 * 1)  "plot does not require sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Moothon homosexuality */ new section"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Moothon. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Talkback (Talk:Moothon) (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of the sexual orientation of a character and claiming the protagonist is transgender without sources for this claim. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the sources and plots generally only require primary sources, which should either be seen or understood through media. Duplicitous templating is not a solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FCF7:6C00:901C:55AD:C307:D9F5 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What the sources say are not a consideration here. This noticeboard is solely concerned with editor conduct, and writing what sources say is not an exception to 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that is the beginning of disruption, and that says lot about conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FCF7:6C00:901C:55AD:C307:D9F5 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging the warnings (for edit warring and adding unsourced material) and then doing it again is a cut-and-dried case. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Lusotitan reported by User:85.241.166.123 (Result: WP:BOMERANG)
Page: User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithornithidae&diff=919518107&oldid=919305623 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithornithidae&diff=919656057&oldid=919538908 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithornithidae&diff=925619082&oldid=922312621

Comments: Edit-warring on Lithornithidae and other pages, often disregarding talk page discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.166.123 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * *. If the nominating editor believes that three reverts to that article justify a block, then they will be very happy with this result, since they have reverted significantly more often than that, over a long period, using several IP addresses, not to mention other problems, such as personal attacks. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 14:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP might be evading his block. For details see an ANI report from 2018 and an SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Deathlibrarian reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: No action, page protected afterwards)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User opened a discussion about the change he wanted to make. And made the change 5 hours after. (told him/her, changes are made after discussion) Nevertheless he has been reverting me saying "don't change til discussion is over". Later accused me on my talk page of edit warring, WP:BOOMERANG? Reason for the report, his edit warring behavior and later accusing me of edit warring. I request justice for being falsely accused. Thanks. KasimMejia (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There is also a suspected sock puppet around reverting the same material XelatSharro. KasimMejia (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , reverts are over several days. WP:SPI is second on the left down the hall. Guy (help!) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC))
 * Can you just tell him that he is in the wrong for not waiting a discussion to be over before making the change he wants., I know this does not warrant a block. But he accused me on my talk page of edit warring while he was guilty. KasimMejia (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * KasimMejia talk) - as discussed - please do not make changes to the page while there is an active discussion about the change taking place on the talk page . The results box should reflect the consensus of the editors active on the page, not the wishes of one particular editor. Thank you. 12:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should tell that to yourself. KasimMejia (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * in response to the follow-up report at SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe Ivan is referring to Sockpuppet investigations/Deathlibrarian/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:88.217.152.166 reported by User:RockingGeo (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 925943079 by RockingGeo (talk) you have to give a reason. If you don't bother to explain why are you are reverting, it appears to be simple vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 925940807 by RockingGeo (talk) if you have a reason to undo the edit, state which policy or guideline you think applies. If you don't have a reason to undo it, don't undo it"
 * 3)  "/* Costs */ this section was not in any way encyclopaedic"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated blanking without seeking consensus on the talk page. Seems to be this person's habit, as they've been involved in a recent edit war on Beijing and they've removed sections from dozens of pages in the past few days with no attempt to seek consensus on any of them. (If had I noticed that before this issue, I would have reported them for vandalism.) RockingGeo  岩石  Talk  14:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is a vandalism situation. The IP's other recent edits look to be good edits—or at the least, good-faith edits. If there is any concern with the IP, it is going to be in the area of edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not broken the 3RR nor anything like, so I can't imagine why this person is reporting me here. As they didn't bother to give a reason for their undoing of my edit, I can't guess what their problem was there either. I think they need to read WP:3RR, WP:NOTVAND, WP:BEBOLD, and WP:REVEXP. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no breach of 3RR. IMO, if both parties pursue discussion at the talk page, that shows they're willing to work collaboratively, and we can close this as no violation with no sanctions given. If the parties don't take the matter to talk page, then that means that administrators will continue to pay attention to the editing by both parties in this report. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something here. This person has reversed the actions of other editors three times (the first blanking was a partial reversion, then two undos) in a span of 24 hours. Good faith or not, I interpreted that as being a WP:3RR violation. RockingGeo  岩石  Talk  16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an edit, and I explained why I made it in the edit summary; you undid it without explaining why. I restored it, asking you what your objection was; you undid it, again without explaining why. I restored it again. So, you reverted twice, and I reverted twice. Now, read the notice at the top of this page. You will see the following text: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". 88.217.152.166 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a deadlock -- both sides complain, but neither will discuss. This might be closed with a warning to both parties not to revert again unless they first find consensus on the talk page for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no deadlock. There is no disagreement that I can perceive. There is no basis for any discussion, because despite repeated requests, the user has not explained what they objected to about my edit. They should have simply explained what exactly they objected to, instead of reverting without explanation and filing this pointless report. 88.217.152.166 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first edit was also a revert. That makes 3 reverts. RockingGeo  岩石  Talk  20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first edit was an edit. Even if you wrongly decided to call it a revert (which edit was being reverted exactly?) then three is still not more than three, is it? 88.217.152.166 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit solely removed content other people added. That's known as a revert. But I just realized the 3RR rule is for 4+ reverts, not 3+. My bad. Confusing policy name. I mainly deal with vandalism, not edit warring. Since you have consensus on the talk page, I'll withdraw this complaint. RockingGeo  岩石  Talk  20:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you not contribute to the discussion on the talk page? Up until now. I see no edits from your hand there! The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Both the IP editor and User:RockingGeo are warned. They may be blocked if either of them reverts again at Sleeve gastrectomy without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)