Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive399

User:KevinThomas71293 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 926100057 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced puffery and copyvio image to Zinta's page, and in their own words is "an official source a member of the agency who handles her all her platforms". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Krimuk2.0 the changes i made are done on Preity Zinta's request. We Digiosmosis handle her account! Mayb I know are you undoing these changes? KevinThomas71293 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:KevinThomas71293 has announced on their user page that they are a paid editor, which is an appropriate declaration, but now they have got into an edit war with a regular editor. The WP:COI guideline provides that paid editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.." KevinThomas has continued to revert the article after being notified of this report. Their comment above doesn't excuse their behavior. A slow war regarding the choice of image has been going on since 6 November. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Arjoccolenty reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Warning)

 * Page:, , , , ,
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Currently married."
 * 2)  "There is NOTHING in Template:Infobox soap character/Wikipedia:SOAP that says em dashes cannot be used. After all, its a fictional character."
 * 3)  "Per MOS:DATETOPRES, we should be using 2019–present"
 * 4)  "MOS:DATETOPRES says it HAS to be 2019–present. It doesn't matter how TOUCHY you are."
 * 1)  "MOS:DATETOPRES says it HAS to be 2019–present. It doesn't matter how TOUCHY you are."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been slow-motion edit-warring (and this point rapid-motion) across multiple articles for some time now, in an attempt to own them to their own preferred status. They've reverted for users, including myself,, and. The edit-warring has been reverted, multiple times, on MOS grounds, and their refusal to understand this is clearly an issue. User also has an editing history of disruptive editing blocks, stemming from refusal to discuss. It is high time this editor be held accountable for their editing practices. I have only included the editing differences from the Jennifer Horton page, however, the exact same similar edits exist on the other pages linked above.  livelikemusic    talk!  14:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

. No wonder the Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page parameter was left blank. No one has attempted discussion on the article talk page. Four editors — zero participation on article talk. So, that's not ideal. El_C 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Wimpus reported by User:Gderrin (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is but one example of User:Wimpus removing material from valid, published sources. Gderrin (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A major problem for editor wimpus is that original language is not english, and his interactions have no sense of negotiation in any way, but simply I am right - you are wrong - and major extensive personal abuse of GDerrin, with no justification apart from the fact that wimpus believes that the commonly used Australian sources are 'wrong'.

The editing community of the Australian biota articles is genuinely exhausted by being told by wimpus that he 'is right' and everyone else is wrong. No other editor has been enlisted by wimpus to collaborate that his specific issues are reasonable and fair. The mission to abuse GDerrin and his sources, is simply incessant and untiring undermining of GDerrin's attempt to continue to produce valid articles from the available sources to the average Australian biota reader or editor. Also with the insistence that etymology align with wimpus's version, exhibits a peculiar understanding of what Australia biota scope is about. It is not to have over-detailed material relative to etymology back into the greek and latin roots. There is a significant volume of Ausrealian biota articles that have sufficient struggles with adequate references, etymology is not the priority of the project. JarrahTree 11:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago, Gderrin requested similaly on this noticeboard administrators to intervene:""Any help with having this editor stop removing reliable sources would be appreciated." However, administrator Someguy1221 posted in his final remarks: “I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited." Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise stated regarding Gderrin’s edits: “The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed.” Gderrin stated earlier that he has little knowledge of Latin and Greek, but persists in multiple instances in adding information that is clearly misquoted/misinterpreted or factually incorrect/at odds with other more reliable sources. In this specific instance, he is quoting a source, that states that “-sepalus” would be Greek, that is clearly at odds with several other sources (and also with our own Wiki-article sepal). Additionally, the source states that ‘’choru’’ is a Greek word for ‘’separate" or "free", for which again I find no support. As, Gderrin seems to lack sufficient knowledge of Latin and Greek, it becomes almost impossible to explain to him why his edits may be flawed. Wimpus (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * JarrahTree states: "GDerrin's attempt to continue to produce valid articles from the available sources to the average Australian biota reader or editor ..." Whether Gderrin's attempts are always valid, can be questioned as Someguy122 stated considering the original research of Gderrin in his etymological edits: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root." There are numerous examples of Gderrin merely comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. But, JarrahTree, is that the norm for the "editing community of the Australian biota articles"? Wimpus (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the general norms of the Australian editing community that has any necessary conditions that insists upon exhaustive explorations of languages other than english to be dealt with in the detail that you insist that we must know about.  Culturally, in some communities you would be seen as a smart arse with the final word for everything, with very limited understanding of the needs of the readers or editors... maybe you should take issue with the databases that we access, the people working on them are paid - maybe you should be combative with them rather than the volunteers here - why not bother them  - https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/  - they even allow your corrections in their pages - https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/help/fixname/23302.  I am sure other australian government databases have opportunities for your to be able to fix etymologies to your hearts desire.  JarrahTree 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not responding to my remarks about whether the massive OR in Gderrin's etymological edits is the norm in "editing community of the Australian biota articles" Wimpus (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gderrin's link in "Previous version reverted to: " perfectly illustrates that Gderrin is misquoting sources and conducts OR.
 * "The specific epithet (chorisepala) is derived from the Ancient Greek word choris meaning "separate" and the New Latin sepalum meaning "sepal". "
 * The source (Brown, 1956, p. 696) writes: "Gr. choris, apart, asunder". "Apart" and "asunder" are adverbs. Gderrin uses this source for: "choris meaning "separate"". "Separate" is not the same word as used by Brown and actually an adjective and not an adverb. So, it seems that Gderrin is misquoting the source. Although "apart" and "asunder" can alo be adjectives, it is clearly intended as adverbs as Greek χωρίς is an adverb.
 * In Brown (1956) we can not find the full compound chorisepala. Gderrin merely uses "to invent one [etymology] by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words."
 * By the way, Gderrin never answered the question of Someguy1221 considering his OR-etymologies ("I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words.")  Wimpus (talk) Wimpus (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You have a very different way of understanding things, I am not a spokesperson for the Australian editing community or the biota editors and I am not in any way going to speak for GDerrin. cheers. JarrahTree 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the first instance of this behavior either. See the two discussions on WP:Tree off Life (October 2018 & august 2019) that have already happened as a result of Wimpus' tendentious editing, not to mention the same situation that is happening on many other articles (Acer castorrivularis, Suciacarpa,  where editors dont have the energy to deal with the wheelwarring that wil ensue.  A look at user talk:wimpus shows a least 4 instances of 3RR warnings over the last year.-- Kev  min  § 00:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please notice, that Kevmin added information that can not be found in the sources as used in Acer castorrivularis, Suciacarpa. He can not quote directly from his sources to support his edits. Wimpus (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for the simple botanical nomenclature were subsequently added to both articles, sources you yourself provided, and wimpus proceeded to revert those additions.-- Kev min  § 01:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevmin is clearly misquoting sources. Wimpus (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you do not understand the difference between an adjective rivularis and a noun rivulus (see here), it would be better to first study the difference between Latin adjectives and nouns, before making such edits. Wimpus (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also see this archived thread. A meta discussion needs to be held to prevent this from happening.


 * It looks like there are two issues here:
 * A content dispute about the etymology
 * An edit war with the etymology being removed and reinserted
 * The content dispute is best resolved at the article's talk page, or the talk page of a project, but not ANEW. This noticeboard focuses only on editor conduct—and to that end, things are on pace to see either the article protected or both editors blocked for edit warring. (Yes, both editors: there is no exemption from 3RR in play here.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that there are only a handful of people interested in this specific issue, and little chance that they will come to a consensus. It really needs a larger centralized discussion on the general question of whether the OR policy applies to etymology. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Somegury1221: Do you want to take the lead as an admin in resolving this? You seem to be familiar with the issue. We might find at least five plant editors to participate in an RfC. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 46. In that discussion on 4 August, User:Gderrin stated . I hope that a resolution can be found, since otherwise a block of at least one of the parties for long term edit warring might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We may find at least five plant editors, but I do think that it is imperative that also editors are participarting that know something about etymology and linguistics. In case you are not familar with Latin and Greek, you might be oblivious to some of the issues being raised and do not see any problems in confusing Greek and Latinized Greek, adjectives and adverbs, adjectives and nouns, nominative and genitive cases, infinitives and participless, et cetera. Wimpus (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and others, I'd be happy to help, but I'll leave further thoughts on Ed's talk page since I realize my comment starts to steer outside the scope of this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Wimpus is warned that their changes to plant species etymologies don't seem to enjoy consensus. If they continue to revert at Dasymalla chorisepala or other articles without getting a talk page consensus first they are risking a block for edit warring. Getting a central RfC is one option, but even in its absence, there is no carte blanche for them to continue warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ජපස reported by User:Lightburst (Result: No violation, wrong venue?)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Diff]

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


 * 3RR warning: [link]
 * The editor Blanked the 3RR warning - and after multiple requests to come to the talk page to discuss, the editor did not come to the talk page, and instead went forum shopping.

User:ජපස was invited to the discussion on the talk page, and additionally advised to go there in an edit summary, instead the editor reverted with an edit summary of "Nah. You're in the wrong, bucko.)" And then the editor tried to delete the whole ARS project with an immediate MfD which was closed rather quickly.

Talk Page Discussion:diff

Comments:

User:ජපස's actions have been disruptive and the editor refuses to come to discussion. The editor has came to the ARS project page and erased a listing I had made asking for ARS help on an saving an article which is in AfD User:ජපස wants the article deleted. I undid the erasure of my listing with an edit summary inviting the editor to the talk page, but the editor immediately reverted my edit to erase my listing again. I did not want to edit war so I did not undo that action and instead discussed on the talk page. Another editor on the ARS project then reverted User:ජපස's second erasure of my listing. Next User:ජපස returned and refactored the listing (hatting my comments) with no edit summary. Again another editor on the project removed the hatting of my listing. Next User:ජපස reverted again so that my listing was again hatted and left no edit summary. This time I undid the action and placed an edit warring template on User:ජපස's talk page. The editor blanked the warning and instead of discussing on talk page, went forum shopping.

The editor has an extensive block history.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard where this was first raised. I suppose User:Lightburst and the rest of the ARC cabal are scared to have outsiders look at their WP:CANVASSing operation? What do admins think? Should we discuss this in one place or many? jps (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation Apart from the fact that the diffs are spread over four days, the third one is not a revert anyway. This appears to be a disagreement which might better be dealt with elsewhere, perhaps at an admin board. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He erased someone's comment twice, then twice tried to hide it. Hiding it in the fold down thing so you can't see it, is about the same isn't it?  Not hitting the revert button but just erasing everything in their edit time and again, still counts as edit warring doesn't it?   D r e a m Focus  14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * doing my best to deal with the disruption and avoid warring, however the editor refuses to drop the stick, and will not come to talk page. In my mind, reporting disruptive editing where an editor repeatedly erases and refactors a listing and then refuses to discuss, is likely the very reason this forum exists. What am I missing here? Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Srexfax reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 48hr)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: edited by Bakir123 (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 11 November 2019, which has the feature

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:02, 13 November 2019 changes short description from Serbian to Bosnian
 * 2) 18:13, 14 November 2019 changes short description from Serbian to Yugoslav
 * 3) 18:26, 14 November 2019 changes short description from Serbian to Yugoslav
 * 4) 19:09, 14 November 2019 changes short description from Serbian to Yugoslav
 * 5) 01:48, 17 November 2019 changes short description from Serbian to Yugoslav

The reason for the gap between 14 and 17 November was that Vanjagenije protected the page on 14 November to stop the edit warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:37, 14 November 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zdravko Čolić Srexfax has participated in the talk-page discussion.

Srexfax has been edit warring to stop the page on Zdravko Čolić saying that he is Serbian. Changing the short description from Serbian to either Bosnian or Yugoslav is part of it. On 13-14 November Srexfax did four reverts in 24 hrs 7 minutes and got an edit-warring notice (his opponent got a one-week block). Now that the protection on the page has been removed, Srexfax has resumed edit-warring. Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)}

Comments:


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, , as uninvolved editor, I will note that, although reported editor (as well as one who filed the report himself) may be guilty of transgression in regard to 3RR, they are right to contest a claim that Z. Čolić is somehow exclusively Serbian singer. He was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, where he lived majority of his adult and professional life, and always considered himself to be Yugoslav singer. He eventually moved to Serbia in 1992, but he certainly still holds both citizenships and passports, probably some property in his hometown of Sarajevo as well, where some of his wider family members also still reside, and which is not only usual practice for people born in Bosnia and moving to various countries to flee from the war but is also something that if you wish to give up you have to specifically and officially demand from the state to release you from unwanted citizenship, and having in mind his high public profile and fame I am certain that we would heard of it - also, we can only speculate that he is Bosnian Serb in ethnic sense, but I never heard him state something like that. Bottom line is: just because Madonna moved to England at some point of her life and career we don't impute our own opinion about her own identity on her by labeling her English singer, or do we?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Shyobyus reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restoring"
 * 2)  "exotic rollbacker"
 * 3)  "@Rollbacker, please return explaining"
 * 4)  "@Moxy please return explaining"
 * 5)  "appropriate image"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sport image */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Sport image */ agree"
 * 3)   "/* Sport image */ com"
 * 4)   "/* Sport image */ sorry what?"
 * 5)   "/* Sport image */ what??"

Not confident this editor has the English skills to understand the concerns at the Japan article or the other articles they are edit waring in.-- Moxy 🍁 05:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Organize2 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported: Also editing as:

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: Not on the talk page, but I've left plenty of non-template messages on their talk page, including one letting them know they need to communicate.

Comments:

I'd go ahead and pull the trigger myself (indef WP:NOTHERE at that) but I'm a bit drunk and so not in the best state to determine if the "any admin would do it" exception for WP:INVOLVED applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm now sober and I've gone ahead and blocked for 72 hours because they've not only continued to edit war, but also created a sock account to continue said edit war. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ViscontiEnsi reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you stopped edit warring for a single second, you could easily verify this, "Sample I1945" was tested in Lazaridis 2016, and was downstream of R2a. There are more too. Before edit warring again, try to do some research, then come back."
 * 2)  "Before removing content, you should always do some basic research."
 * 3)  "It was a sample from Ganj Dareh: Sample I1945 tested positive for R2a"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 926472084 by Fylindfotberserk Citation needed before outright removed."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 926472084 by Fylindfotberserk Citation needed before outright removed."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 926472084 by Fylindfotberserk Citation needed before outright removed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Haplogroup R-M124. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* November 2019 */ Rm"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Haplogroup R-M124. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

First they add an unsourced content here, which I reverted. Then they added a source that doesn't support the content and has constituted original research. Now they change the content and removed the previous source making the new content unsourced again. The WP:BURDEN is on the other user to provide reliable sources in support of the content that they add. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They have continued reverting in spite of this discussion.  ——  SN  54129  11:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , POV pushes Ganj-Dareh and is hellbent on adding the content in the origin section despite no mention of origin of R2 Y-DNA in those source articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:KeyboardPress reported by User:L1amw90 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Dingo Dollar challenges */"
 * 2)  "/* Dingo Dollar challenges */"
 * 3)  "/* Camp Updates */"
 * 4)  "/* Celebrities */"
 * 5)  "/* Bushtucker trials */"
 * 6)  "/* Bushtucker trials */"
 * 1)  "/* Bushtucker trials */"
 * 2)  "/* Bushtucker trials */"
 * 1)  "/* Bushtucker trials */"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Euphoreal reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Multiple reverters to false information have created an efit war. I endeavor to persist in presenting factual truth to people interested in gaining control over their diets."
 * 2)  "Corrected the record to represent truthful, factual information."
 * 3)  "Reverted to corrected revision. Not sure why trolls are so hell-bent on spreading disinformstion about a book that has helped millions of people."
 * 4)  "Fixed errors."
 * 5)  "Once again, correcting the record against obstinate liars who've not read the book."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Kenny139 reported by User:The Mirror Cracked (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed a fake citation, and expanded on claims the movie was falsely review bombed"
 * 2)  "I removed a false citation which had no substantial proof to its claims and replaced it with a PROVEN citation, with a direct quote from the VP of communications at Fandango. Some users appear to have taken this personally, all my edits are made to improve this page."
 * 3)  "/* Audience reception */ removed false citation stating that there were fake reviews, when in reality it was confirmed rating is genuine"
 * 4)  "/* Audience reception */ added more details to accurately depict audience reception"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 926925136 by UpdateNerd (talk) User is taking my factual and cited edits personally, meanwhile the edits he made have no substantial proof in the citation."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 926922028 by UpdateNerd (talk) article updated with Rotten Tomatoes response to being "review bombed""
 * 7)  "Undid revision 926918726 by Ajd (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 926918726 by Ajd (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Star Wars: The Last Jedi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sunsetshimmer1 reported by User:Jasonbres (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony%3A_Equestria_Girls_%28web_series%29&type=revision&diff=926905774&oldid=926905188

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony%3A_Equestria_Girls_%28web_series%29&type=revision&diff=926905089&oldid=926904658
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony%3A_Equestria_Girls_%28web_series%29&type=revision&diff=926904276&oldid=926820689

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony%3A_Equestria_Girls_%28web_series%29&type=revision&diff=926905830&oldid=926905774

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunsetshimmer1

Comments:


 * User never hit the fourth revert, and based on comments on their talk and the article's talk, they are pulling back from the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:CentralTime301 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 927006378 by CentralTime301 (talk) against TVS discussion"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 927006103 by CentralTime301 (talk)  unexplained edit"


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


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


 * Comments:

Spshu has been edit warring on WLNS-TV about his style of way on that article; I've warned him. Please do not block Spshu for indefinite, just temporary. 'Cheers! Central Time 301' 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're both sitting at three reverts when last I looked. You need to resolve this at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Stale/Declined)
Page 1:

Page 2:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Turkish Croatia diff preferred Previous version reverted to: Donji Kraji diff preferred

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


 * 1) Donji Kraji Diff 1
 * 2) Donji Kraji diff 2
 * 3) Donji Kraji diff 3 - this 3rd revert happened few hours ago, after editor Ceha left his response on this AN (!).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Donji Kraji # Issues_concerning_NPOV,_MOS_and_WP:VERIFY detailed discussion, point by point on abuse and misrepresentation of sources
 * Entire Talk:Turkish_Croatia is filled with attempts to resolve issue
 * Most recent being Talk:Turkish_Croatia diff
 * 3RR Archive 396 # User:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 % Result: Page protected
 * Merger discussion disrupted by canvasing from Wikipedia in Croatian language

Comments:

Although this is very specific AN, namely for Edit warring, and on User:Ceha reverts (in spite of such notable verdict User:EdJohnston included in his view on editor Ceha modus operandi), it must be noted that this issue is an old problem, which goes on and on, with few AN's already, and multiple abuses. It concerns no less than three closely interrelated, more precisely WP:COAT / WP:FORK articles, Turkish Croatia, Donji Kraji and Bosanska Krajina - and editor, amazingly, acknowledges that in his comments, like one he left here. That's why there was also attempt to merge Turkish Croatia into Bosanska Krajina, however, discussion is disrupted by user participating in canvasing from Wikipedia in Croatian language (hr.wikipedia), which to that point uninvolved editor User:DraconicDark can confirm. Few uninvolved editors, DraconicDark including, also tried to argue against these reverts and editor Ceha behavior (as well as against behavior of that other editor who was in close correspondence with editor Ceha, but whose name at this point is irrelevant for this AN) by evoking several principles here, such as WP:Consensus (DraconicDark even undid these reverts few times himself), but to no avail. Multiple page protection across several months couldn't help, editor, after initial panic and attempted pushbacks against protecting sysops, simply waited for protection to expiry only to immediately resume with reverts while crying "vandalism". User Ceha's reverts are usually followed only with consistent abuse of edit-summary per WP:ES and specifically per WP:SUMMARYNO, aforementioned accusations of vandalism on my part in spite of thousands of bytes of my arguments in these three articles' Talk pages and few AN's. However, latest development is twofold: 1) editor Ceha suddenly stopped using his usual rational in edit-summaries, which is to cry "vandalism" against my edits, and resorted to new way of POV railroading, with blunt provocations via copy/pasting and repeating my very own words in edit-summeries to explain his reverts in both articles (Turkish Croatia and Donj Kraji respectively), literally, to the last letter - this must fall under WP:Civility ("Avoid condescension", "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment"), WP:ESDOS; and 2) editor Ceha eventually left behind the evidence of WP:Wikihounding (from Donji Kraji-Turkish Croatia, and back and forth): in Talk:Turkish Croatia editor Ceha left a post which obviously discusses edits in article Donji Kraji and is supposed to be left in Talk:Donji Kraji. Editor Ceha removed over 5 thousands bytes of my edits from article Donji Kraji, together with several reliable academic sources placed in multiple references, only with edit-summary explanation which uses my own words which I used to explain undo of his previous revert.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum- Turkish Croatia article has old multiple template messages which editor Ceha ignores and removes them when he makes his reverts.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * User Santasa is wagging an edit war on that pages, has systematicly removed traces of pre-bosnian history on that pages, and is bluntly broken almost every wikipedia rule. Any mention that that areas belonged to any other feudal state he has declared to be an irridentism and is discussing the topics only through the eyes of 20th and 21st century Bosniak nationalistic politics. To make the matters worse he has declined any talk about his changes, or any changes, or compromise. I anyone can help it would be of great use to entire wikipedia comunity.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia isn't exactly a courtroom, you are still required (by those very "(W)ikipedia rules" you are so willing to mention (but not much more) and for the sake of "entire (w)ikipedia community", for whose well being you are expressing here such a concern) to bring forth some evidence for these brazen accusations, otherwise you are entering dangerous grounds of casting WP:ASPERSION - and by the way you are straying from the issue, which is 3RR, not details of some content.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And what is this exactly, are you summoning your crew again ?!-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am posting here, and editor Ceha responding with accusations but without any evidence, they are also continuing their reverts (3rd on Donji Kraji) on articles in question. I hope this won't take to long for some input from sentry admin(s).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it is prety much obvious that you are accusing others for participation in edit war you begun. As I mentioned earlier on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Croatia you are systematicly erasing traces of non-bosnian history in this article. I asked you, again and again for analysis of article changes, but you bluntly refused. You are trying to merge Turkish Croatia with Bosanska Krajina, no matter that Turkish Croatia engulfed larger area. You rewrote historical article in 20th and 21st century context, speaking of a 20th and 21st ideas in medieval times :facepalm: Everything is documented on talk pages (and it is pretty obvious). Do you need there is any need for repetition? The only reason you started accusing on this pages is to win in your edit war... --Čeha (razgovor) 19:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will wait next 24 hours for links and evidences for these accusations, presented in editor Ceha's last two posts here.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The story repeats itself again and again. It all started with user Santasa99 who disrupted the article Turkish Croatia, a long-time more or less stable content   of this article, and who began edit warring. Later he alerted admins  and one of them protected the page, but with problematic content. Then he opened merger discussion. Some other editors reacted to behaviour of the disruptive editor and opposed the merger, giving reasons for that. There has been a significant number of sources from Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Italy, France etc.   that confirm the notability of the article: Turkish Croatia or Ottoman Croatia was a name for the territory, which (until the Turkish conquest in the sixteenth century) had belonged to the medieval Kingdom of Croatia, and that’s why it had such a name. Donji Kraji is a similar case.
 * Conclusion:
 * The stable original content of the article „Turkish Croatia“ has a lot of references from independent and reliable sources.
 * The article deals with distant past and not with recent history, e.g. Bosnian War or Croatian War of Independence in the 1990s.
 * It's not a question of any territorial claim here. Someone who views it differently, doesn't do it in good faith.
 * The article refers to the territory which does not overlap with the area of Bosanska Krajina, neither geographically nor chronologically.
 * -- Silve ''' rije 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First and foremost - always check their sources (!);
 * however, more importantly, editor Silverije disrupting this report by discussing content and sources;
 * claim by Silverije that Turkish Croatia was/is stable article is disingenuous and false - editors tried to merge that article three time in span of several years, with User:Joy successfully merging it with Bosanska Krajina first but not without pushback and reverts by Silverije whom Joy had to issue warning for vandalism - Silverije eventually restored article and deleted redirect after waiting for several years for things and other editors to get quiet;
 * editor Silverije is involved editor in previous edit-wars (and one ANi on Turkish Croatia merger canvasing, where he was confronted by uninvolved users) on both articles and they are summoned to discussion in this report by editor Ceha via back-channel;
 * these sources, except one, are irrelevant for the article content - one is from globalsecurity.org (Really ?! Try to include that one into the article.); one is from pinterest.com image storage and social media service (?!); and all others link to few popular 18th to mid-19th century magazines (WP:AGEMATTERS), all of which are reiterations of Austria-Venetian military border commission report, one in which commission invented and first started using the term, or actual report published (!); only one linked source is genuine contemporary scholarship but one which actually goes in line with my refutations and with all which I contest in that article, so I too am using it to confirm my own claims, it's a research on early-modern map-making in Austria-Hungary (16th-19th century), nothing more nothing less.
 * I am pleading with the sentry admins to tag this report concluded / closed if it can't be dealt with, because I would like to peruse pursuit other possibilities and channels in resolving this matter.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This won't go away if everyone just ignores the problem, at least tag the report as "Declined" so that I can move on and pursuit other options and use different approach.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the ANI close, this is a content dispute. Nothing at the moment that requires a block, without prejudice to reassessment if new behavioral issues arise. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:71.208.146.159 reported by User:Dilidor (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&type=revision&diff=920175195&oldid=920091110

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&diff=prev&oldid=923349557
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&type=revision&diff=923491575&oldid=923415981
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&type=revision&diff=925629683&oldid=925213118
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&type=revision&diff=926041573&oldid=925864968

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.148.212.198

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1938_New_England_hurricane#User_conducting_edit_war%2C_using_copyrighted_material

Comments:

Note that the named user appears to have a sock puppet, as shown where I posted the warning. Also note that the revert war involves material that appears to be copyright infringement. —Dilidor (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * -- looks like another admin protected the page. That should resolve the immediate disruption by the various IPs. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Fredericknapoleon005 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "are all biased - keep it neutral"
 * 2)  "are all biased - keep it neutral"
 * 3)  "are all biased - keep it neutral"
 * 1)  "are all biased - keep it neutral"


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


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


 * Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content, despite requests to discuss on the article's Talk page and seek consensus.  General Ization Talk  02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Joseph Rowe reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Related: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a general comment in that it's not typically a good idea to start multiple discussions about an editor's behavior at different AN pages at the same time. You started WP:ANI less than an hour ago; so, you should try and be a little patient and give others a chance to respond there. actually did respond there and posted a warning at User talk:Joseph Rowe before you started this AN3 discussion and Joseph Rowe doesn't seem to have edited the article in five hours or so. While your frustration is understandable, it's best to give others a chance to respond so as the avoid anyone mistaking this AN3 being opened at this particular time as being an attempt to pile on and further exacerbate things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the above, he's been warned by Johnuniq in the last few hours with no additional disruption since then. If it reoccurs, we can re-assess, but I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:SpTheMan reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You are using the book "Hindu rulers" as your source. Just because the book has "Hindu" in the tittle, doesn't mean it is exlusively about Hindu rulers. In the book, Ranjit Singh (founder of the Sikh Empire) is also mentioned and we know for a fact that he was a Sikh, so therefor the rulers in the book aren't specifically Hindu. Furthermore I gave insight as to why Hari Singh isn't Hindu. In the source it doesn't say anywhere specifically that Hari Singh was Hindu."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 926946817 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 926907413 by Royroydeb (talk) You completely ignored what I wrote. Rajputs have different religions. There are Muslim, Sikh and Hindu's for most Rajput clans"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 926907413 by Royroydeb (talk) You completely ignored what I wrote. Rajputs have different religions. There are Muslim, Sikh and Hindu's for most Rajput clans"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hari Singh. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2019 */ adding a subsection header"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ranbir Singh of Jammu and Kashmir. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Changing Hinduism to Sikhism across a whole range of Jammu and Kashmir articles, on a regular basis, with no sign of stopping Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . I'm also considering applying discretionary sanctions and restricting this user from editing articles or pages within the India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan topics...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Degacrowe9 reported by User:The Mirror Cracked (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with '{'"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with '{'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '{'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '{'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '{'"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '{'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user created the The Big Fun Crafty Show article. It was draftified and moved back, speedy deleted and recreated, and finally taken to AfD. However, the user is edit warring to remove the AfD template and replace it with the unsourced version of the article. This has been going on for 2 days with multiple editors trying to engage Degacrowe9 on their talk page with no success. Their editing is clearly edit warring and disruptive, in my opinion. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added two more diffs of the exact same edit. They are unwilling to discuss. Jalen Folf   (talk)  04:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * – Indef. They were previously blocked 72 hours per a complaint at WP:AIV. The user never communicates and seems not to take notice that anyone else is here. They are competent enough to remove maintenance templates, so they are not completely confused, just a person who won't cooperate. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that Degacrowe9 will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:Faustian (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I added this information from the source Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 :.

E-960 removed parts of it (specifically, reference to Jews being victims in the camps, and the words concentration camps) without prior discussion:.

I then started a thread on the talk page:.

Volunteer Marek did not change the words "concentration camps" despite misgivings but did remove reference to Jews. Another editor, Paul Siebert, didn't have a problem with reference to concentration camps or Jews, but suggested different wording:. No further input from Volunteer Marek.

So based on Paul Siebert's feedback, I changed the wording and added the info:.

E-960 changed the wording without consensus and removed it again, adding a false edit summary that his version was the original statement (clearly, as we see, it was not.  I had written the original statement).

I then added the text plus the full quote from the original source into the reference to make clear that it was supported by the text:.

E-960 removed it again:.

I then found another reference and included it:.

E-960 removed it: with false edit summary about no consent on the talk page for my edit (he was outnumbered 2:1, for what it is worth). As if there was consent for his version.

So one editor has seen no problem with the text I added, E-960 objected to it so he kept reverting. Even after I changed it to match the other's opinion, even after I changed it by adding an additional reference, etc. he kept reverting.

Seeking more opinions, I opened an RFC on this topic:. The contributor concluded here: : "First, the source was quoted not verbatim, so quotation marks are misleading. It uses "supported" in a context of not only military, but "university professors, priests, lawyers and doctors". With respect to interned Jews and other nationalities it says "sympathetic". Second, this source does support this statement, and Jews are mentioned explicitly, partially because their testimonies "described murders and abuse." However, I don't know if this source provides a mainstream viewpoint, or it represents just a minority view. Taking into account that the publisher is very reputable, and that the book was cited in 25 articles, it is likely that it is not a minority view, but further analysis is necessary to confirm that."

On the rfc, E-960 accused me of forum-shopping: and flooded the rfc with off-topic complaints about me.

Then he, the same editor that kept removing information sourced to a book published by Yale University Press, added information (diff:) from a Polish nationalist website: ! This strongly suggests that he is biased.

After another editor questioned the words used: E-960 used this as an excuse to blank the entire section without waiting for further discussion:.

I added additional information. He reverted it:.

I restored the blanked paragraph. He then blanked the entire paragraph again: with false edit summary that there was some sort of consensus not to have the paragraph included.

Basically it comes out to be censorship of any negative information about Poland.Faustian (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments form E-960:

Ok, per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, reverting a new and disputed/contentions edit(s) and conducting a discussion on the article's talk page is not edit warring, but repeatably restoring them is. In each case, user Faustain inserted new material and it was reverted, not only by myself, but by users Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella, full history can be seen here. However, user Faustaian restored those disputed edits, drawing a rebuke form users KIENGIR and Volunteer Marek  on the article's talk page.

Then user Faustian continued to edit war, and in his comments disparaged some of the editors by calling them "Polish editors" here "two Polish editors should not own wikipedia articles..." Faustian 19:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC) and here "...hopefully Polish editors will not remove?" Faustian 19:08, 17 November 2019‎ (UTC).

Also, here an anonymous IP restored some of the disputed material user Faustian first added, prompting user Volunteer Marek to revert, and to raise concern that this may be a sockpuppet "We can discuss the changes but this is obviously disruptive editing by a SPA sock". Just now, at 13:35, 21 November 2019 user Faustain initiated this admin complaint about alleged edit warring, and at 13:43, 21 November 2019, proceeded to reinsert the material user Volunteer Marek reverted (which was first added by user Faustian, and than reinserted by an anonymous IP). But, it's everyone else that out of order according to user Faustain, so I'll allow user Faustian's most recent actions to speak for themselves as to who is edit warring. --E-960 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Anon user, who restored the long passage blanked by Volunteer Marek, is not my sock. So it's a false accusation.  You keep blanking information prior to the resolution of the issue through discussions that I initiated. I restored it, but did not violate 3RR when doing so. When I open an RFC to get more opinions, you accuse me of forum shopping.  You summoned  Volunteer Marek, who has an extensive history of edit warring on behalf of Poland   and who is even banned from contributing to Poland-related articles during World War II, yet accuse me of canvassing.  I came to add info I found interesting it it all gets erased by you. Faustian (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Faustian, pls recognize that several other editors also raised issue with the validity of your edit(s) and/or behavior, so not just me, but users KIENGIR, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, Piotrus and on some but not all points Paul Siebert. --E-960 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that this is not Faustian's sock. That's most likely this banned editor. And it's true that Faustian's restoration of this sock's edits did not violate 3RR ... but his four OTHER reverts did (see below).  Volunteer Marek   14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Diffs #3 and #4 are consecutive edits so that are not two separate reverts. There's no 3RR violation here. Faustian has been around Wikipedia for a long time and has been involved in multiple disputes so they should know that consecutive edits do not constitute separate reverts so presenting them as if they were appears to be a bit bad-faithed to me. What makes this worse is that it appears that Faustian has violated 3RR himself on the article:
 * 14:13 Nov 19 ("restored version..." <-- obvious revert)
 * 18:07 Nov 19 ("Please do not revert until..." while reverting himself, obvious revert)
 * 2:05 Nov 20 ("rv largecale..." <-- obvious revert)
 * 12:22 Nov 20 ("(I have restored..." <-- obvious revert)

with an additional 5th revert on 13:43 Nov 21, and a previous revert (which would make it 6)  on 22:06 Nov 18. Unlike E-960's edits, these are non-consecutive edits which meet the definition of a revert. So Faustian himself made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours, with two additional reverts very close to 24 hours.

It should be noted that Faustian's proposed edits have been contested by at least three different editors (including myself) on the article itself, with additional two or three editors objecting to some of his edits at least partially on talk. So unlike E-960, who has at least some plausible claim to (partial) consensus, Faustian is edit warring against multiple editors.

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation.  Volunteer Marek  14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that I was ready to assume good faith here, until Faustian brought ethnicity into it and started with the whole "Polish editors are this!" "Polish editors are that!". Of course he never brings up his own ethnicity, because, you know, it's only the ethnicity of those who disagree with you that matters (/s). And, perhaps more importantly, NOT all editors who disagree with him are even Polish. When you start judging editors and their edits on the basis of their ethnicity, rather the merit of the edits themselves, you're clearly "discussing editors, not content" and you're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory.  Volunteer Marek  14:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits that you called reverts involved adding additional information or references in the hope that they would not be reverted. It was further building of the article. I mentioned ethnicity because the particular editors working together to remove this info are of that ethnicity and seem to be battling on behalf of their country, rather than being neutral. I also note your history of doing so.Faustian (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you continue discussing editors rather than content. You assume that other editor's ethnicity determines their views, which is... messed up. You also fail to notice that a similar assumption could be applied to yourself. And now you double up with personal attacks and false accusations (your last claim). I suggest you really stop judging people by their ethnicity cuz that's block worthy in and of itself, even putting aside your 3RR violation.  Volunteer Marek   16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not assume ethnicity determines an editor’s content but note that in this case two editors have been battling in favor, so to speak, of this country and one of them has an extensive record of doing so. And somehow these are the ones doing that. I let it go after your comment. For the records, if it matters,  I am of mixed ethnicity.Faustian (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again you keep discussing editors and making unsupported allegations. Since we seem to be close to the agreement on this issue (hopefully) how about you withdraw the request in good faith, particularly since it's very likely to WP:BOOMERANG on you since you're actually the one who broke 3RR not E-960.  Volunteer Marek   18:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that’s the ultimate goal, adding to the project without disruptions and tendentious editing based on whatever personal motivations. The issue does indeed appear to be getting resolved as it should be. I’m not sure what I did violates 3RR (I was not simply reverting but adding more info) but since things are moving forward towards an acceptable solution thanks to the help of various editors I retract this in good faith. Is there a mechanism for doing so? I’m about to go into some meetings and will be offline for awhile.Faustian (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by the filer, User:Faustian. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:David-golota reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Protected)
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: [diff]

Comments:

User has not broken the 3RR rule, however, this is not the first time this User has engaged in edit warring activities on the same page regarding the same content, as seen here in the User's talk page history from 4 years ago  for which the user received a block. I would have tried more dialogue before making this report but the User seems to have a history of refusing to engage in discussion and edit warring. — 2 . O . Boxing  16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the User replied to my message on their talk page asking them to stop reverting, stating "I know what I’m doing" —  2 . O . Boxing  19:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please resolve this on the talk page. Both editors are edit warring here, please consider this a warning. I don't think this falls under the exceptions to 3RR either. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the only thing that needs resolving is the content being restored. MOS:BOXING/RECORD is clear on the matter, regional titles are to be included:
 * For minor sanctioning bodies without a direct link to their title histories (see list of boxing organisations), or if the title is only a regional one by a major sanctioning body, split the links individually between sanctioning body and weight class:


 * The WBC Continental Americas heavyweight title is a regional title by a major sanctioning body and should not have been removed in the first place, as the User knows. As for a warning, I believe the User's edits were vandalism; "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"...seeing as the user has been informed, warned and blocked for removing the exact same content in the past and also stated "Been a member since 2010. Check yourself and your own belt. I know what I'm doing". Do I now need to put in an edit request on the article's talk page for the content to be restored, or is that something you can do as a consensus has already been reached? Thanks. — 2 . O . Boxing  02:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Quenreerer reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked for 36 hours, reverted to prior version )
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:


 * In my opinion, this is a Wikipedia: BRD misuse. The changes are very limited. And I gave my reason on the talk page. The article is easier to consume to someone (like me), who is interested in which units partook in the battle. I was careful not to overload the infobox and i didn't make changes that are very dissimilar to a multitude of Vietnam battle pages. Quenreerer (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Quenreerer ignored WP:BRD and only engaged on the Talk Page after edit warring and after I made this complaint. Mztourist (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mztourist accused me of overloading infobox. I feel like i edited in a way very similar to other battle of ... pages. Examples And numerous other examples. I also gave the reason why i added the info. It's easier to consume. Not every person wants to read the whole article and just wants to take a look at which units participated. Mztourists only source is the bad faith use of BRD, with which he tries to force endless "discussion", with no intent of accepting any arguments. My changes in the infobox have precedent. He can't accept that so he revert wars miss using BRD. Quenreerer (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Battle of Hamburger Hill
 * Normandy landings
 * Operation Crimp
 * Pointe du Hoc
 * Operation Downfall


 * Also were issues here. Restored to stable version. User:Quenreerer ask for further input on the appropriate Wikiproject. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Walidou47 reported by Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22 Nov 14:18 (reverted by User:Trappist the monk)
 * 2)  22 Nov 17:42 (reverted by me)
 * 3)  22 Nov 20:05 (reverted by me)
 * 4)  22 Nov 20:11 (reverted by me)
 * 5)  22 Nov 20:10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Borja95 reported by User:ShadowRangerRIT (Result: Protected for a month.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I removed unrelated content."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 927419737 by Iñaki LL (talk)"
 * 3)  "Removed unrelated content."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)  "→‎Warning: new section"


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


 * Comments:

Warned directly (by Kansas Bear) after three attempts to delete content were reverted (by two different users), deleted content again two hours later (a third user, not myself, already reverted that latest edit). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 15:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * for a month. Appears there have been ongoing issues on this page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Both parties edit warring. Protected for a week.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Note also the misleading edit summary "Oxford Dictionary" he gives at diff #2 above, but adding nothing from any Oxford source. The OED was already in a reference in the article, contradicting the stuff he added. In the talk section he later gives refs to online Oxford and Merriam-Webster, which both agree with what was already in the lead, and have nothing of the stuff he added. I provided a compromise version, keeping the incorrect information he was edit-warring to preserve, and reconciling to the better stuff already there, but then he starts edit-warring over that. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * for a week. Both parties edit warring. Would restore it to how it was originally but it is unclear if there is agreement on bits of the rest of the changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine to restore it to the original, which was at least fully correct, unlike the current version. But I now quite like the compromise version, retaining his stuff, but pointing out is is an over-simplification. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod is persisting on removing sourced content and is continuing to do so even after I started a discussion in the talk page asking them to stop. QuestFour (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please you two. Work something out. Or at least each craft a version and bring it to a RfC for wider input. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User: ‎Factsinwiki reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link & link

Comments:

User continue to engaje in WP:EW, editing without using sources, ignored and deleted warnings and engaged in WP:SYNTH. ps: he even deleted the warning i send his way to warn him about this discussion. Coltsfan (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Page protection was requested at the talk page. Not being aware of this report, I full-protected the page for 1 day to stop the edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On my part the EW had ended. I tried to send him messages and establish contact but he deleted the messages. Then i send him a standard warning about this report, but he also deleted it. Like i said on the other page, his attitudes seems to indicate that he is not someone who is willing to talk. Coltsfan (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I opened up a discussion in the article's talk page, but i only did so after this discussion was open. But that don't change the fact though that user Factsinwiki ignored the warnings given to him and even bragged about all this. Coltsfan (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mario Bemer reported by User:Creffett (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stefano's Brother Mario Bemer is carrying on his brother authentic artisan shoemaking philosophy."
 * 2)  "Stefano's Brother Mario Bemer is carrying on his brother authentic artisan shoemaking philosophy."
 * 3)  "Information related to Stefano Bemer and his legacy."
 * 4)  "Added Mario Bemer site"
 * 5)  "Mario Bemer carries on the artisinal shoemaking philosophy that his brother Stefano and he created."
 * 1)  "Added Mario Bemer site"
 * 2)  "Mario Bemer carries on the artisinal shoemaking philosophy that his brother Stefano and he created."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Stefano Bemer. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2019 */ Replying to Creffett (using reply-link)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly adding self-promotional unsourced content (reverted by me and two other editors). No response to revert edit messages or warning on talk page. creffett (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ultimâ reported by User:Apparition11 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 924424344 by  ST47 (talk) Refer to talk page and characteristics section."


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 927621566 by ST47 (talk) Removing people's contributions is Disruptive editing. Consensus is obtained on the talk page. BRD also advises against undoing but rather proposing improvements.  Please see the Talk page section "More specific than title" rather than trying to maintain that is incorrect."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 927600944 by MrOllie (talk)Consensus is obtained on the talk page, not by erasing people's contributions. WRT advises against reverts."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 927595784 by MrOllie (talk) Consensus is obtained on the talk page, not by erasing people's contributions.  WRT advises against reverts."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 927414161 by ST47 (talk) Please refer to previous advice."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 927322222 by ST47 (talk) This has gone through numerous iterations of improvement. Propose amendments if you like on the talk page."


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


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

While I am not involved in the dispute, I saw the edit war and issued the warning. Ultimâ never conceded that his edit warring was wrong and does not appear to have any plans of waiting for consensus for. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 23:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Timothyvail reported by User:Doc James (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Nov 21st 20:39
 * 2)  Nov 21st 20:44
 * 3)  Nov 22nd 15:18

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This page is under a WP:1RR which the user was informed of before their last revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit warring has continued after this report; added new diff here. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 4th diff, which was a repeat of Diff #3.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Timothyvail is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Abortion unless they have received a prior conensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Pre-war consensus version: link 22 August 2019 and recent 16 November

Diffs of the user violating 3RR:
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2
 * 3) diff 3

Diffs of 3RR warning:
 * 1) on user's talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) talk page 1
 * 2) talk page 2
 * 3) talk page 3

Comments:

Consensus version is based on admin's decision


 * User has not violated 3RR. It takes four reverts to do so, and they only have two. (One of the diffs you provided shows them reverting themselves.) I intend to look at the article and possibly protect it temporarily, as it seems that both parties are edit warring here. ST47 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ST47 he made 3 reverts, also violated long-term warring rules, and makes subtle vandalism since April (I suppose ideological). but thanks for protecting the article, I hope he stops vandalizing. -- Arsenekoumyk (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Rizhwickh reported by User:Begoon (Result: 48 hours)
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:

Repeated removal of content/references. -- Begoon 15:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

. Also, referring to other editors as "miscreants" is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself,. El_C 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:LWRH reported by User:Nemov (Result: protected)
Page:

LWRH:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I apologize in advance if did this wrong. First time I’ve had to this for bad edits. Upon review, I did revert this change 4 times by accident. I lost count while I was working on something else. I’ve approached the user on talk, but the person doesn't appear to be reasonable. I'll gladly take a supension for going over 3 reverts, but this user isn't being helpful. Thanks!Nemov (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

. Note that the user was not warned about 3RR, so they may simply not be aware of its existence. El_C 18:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I also apologise, this is my first time editing a page, I did then talk to User:Nemov on the talk page. The plot that continues to be put on the is incorrect, there are many factual points that are wrong and misleading. I would like the truth to be on the wiki page but for some reason this is not being allowed. I don't understand why you would want to protect the page with wrong information stated. Please look to rectify this. User:LWRH


 * Sorry, I'm not interested in becoming involved in the content dispute. The article was protected on the version in which I immediately encountered. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. El_C 18:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Alainlambert reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reinserted text with reference to dozens of people being interviewed as part of probe"
 * 2)  "/* Durham Probe */ added source"
 * 3)  "reinstated text on durham investigation and softened the title of the section"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 927657687 by Muboshgu (talk), removing obvious Point of View, please get on Talk Page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 927656562 by Acroterion (talk) You deleted the addition because in your Point of View it doesnt belong to this page, as you stated. the addition was very clearly sourced, and did not contain any opinion or hint of an opinion. if your opinion is that we shouldn't add information about Mr Brennan being asked to meet with Attorney Durham, please take to the Talk page. please don't edit war"
 * 6)  "added section on Durham criminal investigation and sources"
 * 7)  "/* Durham criminal investigation */ added a source"
 * 1)  "added section on Durham criminal investigation and sources"
 * 2)  "/* Durham criminal investigation */ added a source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Discretionary sanctions alert */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Discretionary sanctions alert */ Replying to Alainlambert (using reply-link)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on John Brennan (CIA officer). (TW)"


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

You guys crack me up. So quick to delete and threaten and no attempt at collaborating. You will notice, if you take the time, that today's edits are each different, each trying to address concern raised. How can it be that legitimate, good faith efforts to address concern raised result into this? what about the policy about dealing with new comers? The total lack of collaboration raises legitimate concerns about impartiality here. People should make an effort to address my concerns as well instead of non-collaboration Alain Alainlambert (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Also see this editor's user page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

. El_C 20:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

User: Grayfell reported by User: Parmenides475 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Note that User: Parmenides475 failed to notify me of this discussion as required by policy. They seem confused about what is and is not a WP:3RR violation. This ain't one. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would tell to allow the talk page discussion to play out.  I have no position in the actual dispute, but Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias.  We present the reliable sources that are used so readers can examine them and determine their validity for themselves.  If you want to argue that certain sources are not reliable, you must do so at WP:RSN. That a source has a certain editorial viewpoint does not make it unreliable. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan reported by User:AnAudLife (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Nov. 25th 05:40 UTC
 * 2)  Nov. 25th 05:50
 * 3)  Nov. 25th 06:03
 * 4)  Nov. 25th 06:28

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user:KyleJoan and I have a long history of disputes, just tonight we were disputing citations on the same article so as each of us made an edit or revert on this issue the explanation was provided in the Edit Summary. It wasn't until they told me to report them (in one of the Edit Summaries of a their reverts) and said they didn't care if I did, that they finally made a statement on my talk page. At that time, given our past disputes and the current climate of the interactions, I felt a report was necessary and I didn't revert their last edit to avoid more warring and disruption.

Comments:

This user has 7 blocks for edit warring and violation of 3RR already and is still consistently and actively engaging in edit warring with myself and others. See for another user's warning posted within the last 24 hours. AnAudLife (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor reported seem to have an attitude in the article and the editors in the said article. When I reverted his/her edits and I warmed him about it, he "thanked" my edits which I thought was quite passive aggressive. Then he reverted the article to his preference after thanking my edits. He also changed the width size of the wikitable for no reason, which I asked him about it. He used his personal assumption as if certain cast members will appear in the show. I also warned him in his talk page not to edit war/revert and discuss the issue in the talk page, but decided to revert the article again to his preference. TheHotwiki (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This user has 7 blocks for edit warring . .. False. I have five blocks. The block on February 12, 2018 was a mistake, and the administrator that imposed it  personally apologized for it.
 * When I reverted his/her edits and I warmed him about it, he "thanked" my edits which I thought was quite passive aggressive. Then he reverted the article to his preference after thanking my edits. Please don't mischaracterize my activities. I did not revert the article after this gesture, and this diff shows that it was a regular edit. If that's unacceptable, then I apologize for recognizing your contribution and altering it to make it more cohesive.
 * He also changed the width size of the wikitable for no reason, which I asked him about it. I did this one time, and after learning that there is not a MOS guideline regarding table width, I left it alone in accordance to Hotwiki's preference, so I don't understand why this is being brought up.
 * He used his personal assumption as if certain cast members will appear in the show. Please don't mischaracterize my edits. I quipped that the sentence I was referencing made it seem as if there are no one else on the show based on the sentence's structure; it was meant to poke fun at how the wording of the information was misleading.
 * I also warned him in his talk page not to edit war/revert and discuss the issue in the talk page, but decided to revert the article again to his preference. All three of us are guilty of this.
 * For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out a few edits that by AnAudLife that I find confusing and counterproductive:
 * Per this edit, AnAudLife reverted an edit by an IP user that said IP user believed removed unsourced information. In their edit summary, AnAudLife stated: According to Bravo, it is confirmed, please see article that is cited, when in fact, the information is not confirmed in the article they referenced; where the information is confirmed is in the three citations that I added that the other two users are so intent on reverting.
 * AnAudLife reverted an edit that I made to correct the grammatical structure of a sentence and dismissed it as a disruptive edit. I wrote a message on their talk page to resolve the matter and later found that they had deleted my message after stopping their revert of the correction I made. Maybe they knew they were incorrect in their edit and didn't want to admit it?
 * I implored both AnAudLife and Hotwiki to cite a policy or guideline to support their reverts of the citations that I added, to which both users replied with a suggestion to read Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is not even an official guideline. I did, however, read the essay, during which I learned that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity, which makes me even more confused as to why they were so against citations of reliable sources. Hotwiki later cited Manual of Style/Lead section for their one of their recent edits but did not state where in the guideline it says adding citations were problematic/unnecessary. Furthermore, as the article stands, the information at the center of the dispute remains present in the article while unsourced, therefore, we would have to add a tag . . . or . . . we can restore the citations that confirm that information.
 * I have cited multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the respective talk page discussions that followed with each user, which you can find here and here, while Hotwiki has referenced one guideline without explanation and AnAudLife has referenced neither a policy nor a guideline, respectively, so please understand that I mean no disruption with my attempt in following said policies and guidelines and inserting citations to verify materials on the article. Thank you for your attention. KyleJoan talk  13:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I cited from Bravo, the network who created and airs the show, they specifically stated Leah McSweeney would be joining the show for season 12. That's pretty clear to me. I made a grammatical change to a completely different sentence and reported user didn't like it so they began the reverting.  I made the change first, not them as they've stated.    What it boils down to is no matter what or who makes a change to certain pages, user:KyleJoan will always revert and therein lies the problem and it has become excessive. Also, user:KyleJoan denies repeatedly changing table width when I’ve seen them do it SO many times, this is just one instance  and given enough time to research I could find more, like this one  and this one .  They can’t say they don’t keep changing it back to how they want because they do and the evidence is there for anyone who wants to find it, it’s classic edit warring. AnAudLife (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gasp! I changed the table width multiple times without referencing a MOS guideline to support it. Guess what? All three IP users referenced as well as Hotwiki did too. The article I cited from Bravo, the network who created and airs the show, they specifically stated Leah McSweeney would be joining the show for season 12. That's pretty clear to me. Correct. However, the lede and the cast table also mention the rest of the cast for the upcoming season. Which citation in the article supports this material? Please don't keep making me repeat this question. . . . no matter what or who makes a change to certain pages, user:KyleJoan will always revert . .. Can you direct me to these pages? All of the other articles on which I am a prominent contributor, including two good article noms that were successfully promoted within the last two months (i.e., Kenny Omega and The Bold Type), look pretty stable to me. KyleJoan talk  16:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:KyleJoan stated, “Gasp! I changed the table width multiple times without referencing a MOS guideline to support it.” So now you admit it when you previously denied it by lying, stating “I did this one time”. I’ve made my report, I’m going to let the administrators deal with you. AnAudLife (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my greatest sin? Changing table widths? I guess that means Hotwiki is guilty of the same misconduct–evidenced here and here–too, then, huh? KyleJoan talk  17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I stated my reasons for changing width size, which you clearly didn't. That's the difference between our edits. I've asked you about it in the past. Also two editors have accused you of edit warring, The Real Housewives of New York City in less than 24 hours. TheHotwiki (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I stated my reasons for changing width size, which you clearly didn't. I didn't know that one's own reasoning was the universally accepted foundation of correctness. I guess I needed to state my reasons to be as correct as you are. Who needs policies and guidelines when we have reasons? Aside from that, after our discussion regarding the matter, never once did I change the table width again, so why is this still being discussed? Also two editors have accused you of edit warring, The Real Housewives of New York City in less than 24 hours. Anyone can copy and paste templates. I could have done the same, but I knew we were all trying to achieve the most appropriate version of the article. That said, I do not fault either of you for reporting the situation because we could have all done better. KyleJoan talk  19:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Protected. Discuss on the talk page in the mean time.  Actually, KyleJoan's last "revert" (06:28) isn't one, but they do also  have two more in the last 24 hours (04:10, and 09:35 on 24/11)  However, since the filer of this report has six reverts in the last 24 hours (23:08 UTC, 02:51, 04:21, 05:46, 05:58, 06:25) the only options are to block both of you, or neither. I have decided on the latter, on the basis that any more issues after the protection has expired will be dealt with seriously. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your assistance, Black Kite. I also apologize for any inconvenience this report may have caused. KyleJoan talk  19:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your "six" reverts number for me in context only. One was correctly done in reply to an incorrect edit done by some IP address. Then two edits on KyleJoan for the citations, which he/she also reverted all of mine.  Then 3 edits on KyleJoan for his/her reverting my change to the critical reception which he/she then reverted all.  I've never been blocked for edit warring, 3RR's, nothing.  KyleJoan is a serial offender of edit warring and breaking the 3RR and yet nothing is done but page protections or blocks that are soon or eventually removed.  He/she was told by an admin the last time he/she was blocked for a month that if he/she did it again he/she would be permanently blocked.  I guess the rules don't really apply?  I literally can't make any edits on Wiki, the few pages I watch, without KyleJoan changing every single edit, no matter what. AnAudLife (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:117.81.107.2 reported by User:Basile Morin (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1 Nov 23rd
 * 2) diff 2 Nov 24th
 * 3) diff 3 Nov 25th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please protect the page or block this IP. Continuously removing a Featured Picture, that is also used in the same article in other languages -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Zabboo reported by User:Jimi Henderson (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1 Oct 21rd
 * 2) diff 2 Nov 14th
 * 3) diff 3 Nov 25th

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

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

Comments:

This user periodically overwrites the Old Is New album, considering it unofficial for some reason that is apparently known only to him and he considers his point of view to be consensus, although this is far from the case. Please influence!--Jimi Henderson (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No violation here, but you should leave the editor a note or warning if this is a concern going forward. Additionally, you absolutely need to inform them of this 3RRNB request, or any other submission on an Admin Noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Tag-Mod 13 reported by User:OfficiallyGoodenough (Result: Warned)
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:

Comments: Repeated unnecessary differentiation between NXT and NXT UK-branded competitors in Men's and Women's Survivor Series Matches OfficiallyGoodenough (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, as someone who watched many of these edits unfold while having the page open during the Survivor Series event, the user in question kept making the same change over and over dozens of times, despite repeated warnings not to, and the changes being made were downright inaccurate at best, spammy and vandalism at worst. By the end of the night, the user started putting laughing-face emojis in the comments of their bad edits. This person clearly is a troll who attempted to vandalize the page, and a look at their user talk page tells me this isn't the first time they've done this. Bobharris1989 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Tag-Mod 13 is warned for edit warring. They didn't continue to revert after receiving the 3RR warning notice at 03:06 on 25 November. Report again if this continues. Try not to leave vandalism warnings when it's actually a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Aemathisphd reported by User:Ramsin93 (Result: Both blocked 48hr)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please review this user's editing history of the page, and if necessary prevent this user from manipulating the biography of a living person to present an author in an unfair, unbalanced image. I've tried to start the article with a lead introduction that presents the authors entire life and corpus of works through neutral eyes, the editor however insists on presenting the author with a skewed view that reflects his personal views on the subject.

This user has engaged in edit warring and been banned for doing so before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aemathisphd#Edit_warring_at_Israel_Shahak

Ramsin93 (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)}}


 * Please note that the third-revert rule was broken first by Ramsin93. Aemathisphd (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To wit
 * #
 * #
 * #
 * Aemathisphd (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Infoman99 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 927948676 by Walter Görlitz (talk) --  per talk page discussion on WP:RS requirements for citations only in specific circumstances, updating to avoid inaccuracy, and dictionary examples of output verb"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 927948188 by Walter Görlitz (talk) - -- per talk page discussion on WP:RS requirements for citations only in specific circumstances, updating to avoid inaccuracy, and dictionary examples of output verb)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 927929810 by Walter Görlitz (talk) -- per talk page discussion on WP:RS requirements for citations only in specific circumstances, updating to avoid inaccuracy, and dictionary examples of output verb"
 * 4)  "small clean up of connectors language"
 * 5)  "/* Video */"
 * 6)  "/* Video */"
 * 7)  "/* Successors */ update"
 * 8)  "/* Successors */ update"
 * 9)  "/* Successors */"
 * 10)  "/* Successors */"
 * 1)  "/* Successors */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Clean up and modernization of article */ R"
 * 2)   "/* Clean up and modernization of article */ R"
 * 3)   "/* Clean up and modernization of article */ R"

While appreciate the efforts to clean-up and modernize the article I pointed out spelling and WP:V issues. Infoman99 doesn't think they're problems and has simply reverted to the version that was present at 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC). It's not an improvement in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * As Walter Görlitz stated on the article talk page, he first reverted the updates simply because he doesn't like the word "output" as a verb, without reviewing any of the other modifications made ("I didn't bother to read further").
 * Even though I pointed him to multiple dictionaries that allow the word's use and its past tense form "outputted" -- he still badmouths it as "making up words" and a reason for his edit warring reverts.
 * On his second and third reverts, he provided no edit summaries, but threw in an article talk page commentary that he did not believe the modifications were "improving" the article, along with a blanket mention of WP:V that ignores the quoted sentence at the core of WP:V and WP:RS.
 * He also posted a generic warning template to my personal talk page, which violates the guidance of the WP:EDITWAR policy: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself".
 * As for the article itself, it currently has only two minor citations, at the end. It is otherwise unsourced.
 * Unfortunately, the article has grown out of date and has become inaccurate. As WP:BOLD says, Wikipedia is best when "everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate." That is what I am doing.
 * I noted more than once that WP:RS and WP:V require inline citations only for "material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."
 * Walter Görlitz is free to challenge particular, specific changes (as he did the word "outputted"), or to add sourcing and citations for the entire article, if he wishes. (That may be the best use of his time, instead of taking up this process.)
 * Given that he admitted that he originally reverted based solely on his dislike of a term found in multiple dictionaries, and his unwillingness to consider the actual text of WP:V quoted, I believe the administrators should advise him accordingly. Thank you. Infoman99 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I challenged it all on the talk page, particularly the making up of words. WP:COMMONALITY, and WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll assume in good faith that Walter Görlitz is not trying to suggest that he actually cited WP:COMMONALITY at some point, which never happened.
 * Here is what he actually relied upon, in his own words, to oppose the use of the word outputted:
 * it gave him "a gag reflex"
 * his conclusion that "a lot of people already have a problem" with the verb output
 * seeing the word caused him not to want to "bother to read further".
 * Apparently his 'gag reflex' and the people he spoke with about the verb output have more weight than at least four major dictionaries that include the verb output and outputted, including Oxford, American Heritage, Collins, and wiktionary.
 * Also, output as a verb was present in the article before I modified it, but apparently its use was not important enough to 'correct' in the past 5+ years. This calls into question whether Walter Görlitz is actually interested in the content and improvement of this article or simply wants to prevent changes to it.
 * Notice also, yet again, the generic mention of WP:V, without responding to the very core of the policy. Infoman99 (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, not about the problems, and I admit, after Googling a bit, this could be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but edit warring over a preferred version (yours vs the longstanding version) is what the issue is. There are several major dictionaries that do not allow the neologism, but there are others that recognize it. There's also the lack of sourcing, which, yes, WP:V does require when challenged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear about what Walter Görlitz is saying here. He performed three total reverts of a fairly broad set of changes (including paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrasing, and currentness of language) because:
 * he didn't like one word that was used, and
 * he dislikes the WP:V core principle that inline citation is called for when a specific, particular statement is challenged.
 * So instead of changing the one word he did not like, or reading through the updates and challenging each particular statement he found questionable -- or marking each "citation needed", he simply deleted all updates and corrections.
 * This behavior is consistent with what his profile page discusses -- administrators have blocked him for edit warring previously, and this is also consistent with the concerns other administrators have expressed about his other edit warring in the past.
 * I think this should all be kept in mind while reviewing the appropriate response here. Infoman99 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, you went to four reverts after being warned and starting a discussion, but by all means, keep edit warring and deflecting. All the while adding poor-quality and unsourced content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am -- yet again -- going to assume Walter Görlitz's good faith and that he is not intentionally mis-representing a basic fact.

As someone who's been previously blocked for violating 3RR, he surely must be aware that a revert is: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions."

Because I performed only three reverts, his implication that I performed "four reverts" is yet another problematic action that the administrators should consider when determining what action to take against him.

They should also take note of his efforts to protect inaccurate and outdated content against attempts to update the article and clean up the wording -- instead of putting that effort into improving the article itself -- so as to to keep his sense of ownership of the article.Infoman99 (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume that you've read WP:3RR which states "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Since your first series of edits undid another editor's previous actions, that series constitutes your first revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we've already established that Walter Görlitz will not readily consult dictionaries, I'll graciously point out that "undo" is a different word than "modify". Undo means to cancel or annul. In addition, "undo" has a specialized meaning in Wikipedia -- as shown by the "undo" button in an article's history -- of wiping out the changes made by an editor. (WP:UNDO refers to undo's as "undoing all constructive changes" made previously.) And as I added and updated content, that is not an undoing.
 * In a broader sense, I hope he recognizes from this experience -- which he seems to drearily repeat on a regular basis -- that arguing online over a few sentences is a poor way to waste his life, when he could have used all those many times to add a few more sources and help educate the world.Infoman99 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC) (specialized meaning sentences added 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC))


 * Result: Both editors warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Neither party broke 3RR yet but they show little interest in having a real content discussion. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you miscounted. Infoman99 clearly completed a fourth set of reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a shifty little artifice by Walter Görlitz. Of course, "undo" in 3RR ≠≠ "modify" (see above), which rather defeats his too clever by half feint. Speaking of things that are similar, making a false report is in the same class as bearing false witness. But if that's his true desired legacy on Wikipedia... Infoman99 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No shiftiness at all. As for 3RR ≠≠ "modify", you're not reading 3RR and I'm not bearing false witness. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is clear, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" and you undoes other editors' actions. So again, please do not paint me as the villain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh look, an unsupported implication that modify = undo, and a failure (refusal?) to consult dictionaries as to the actual definition of undo. Surprise, surprise!
 * (In addition, "undo" has a specialized meaning in Wikipedia -- as shown by the "undo" button in an article's history -- of wiping out the changes made by an editor. (WP:UNDO refers to undo's as "undoing all constructive changes" made previously.))
 * It must be difficult as Walter Görlitz realizes that with all the hours he wastes deleting the contributions of others, he might feel ownership of the wikipedia pages he patrols slipping between his fingers. (Incidentally, how does he even have this time in the day? I work and am giving up my free time on his nonsense.)
 * But hey, if he wants to cause petty strife, I'm sure that's looked upon as kindly as bearing false witness. Infoman99 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Walter, I do not perceive the set of edits labelled as #4 in your above list as being a revert ("Consecutive edits made from 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC) to 17:02, 25 November 2019"). Infoman99, be careful about casting WP:ASPERSIONS when you are at an admin noticeboard ('shifty little artifice' and 'bearing false witness'). An admin may be tempted to block your account, since we don't want a noticeboard to descend into mud-slinging. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After quickly scanning through years of administrator reviews of Walter Görlitz's actions and concerns about his behavior on this site generally, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I am concerned about the effects of his actions on this site, which I enjoy reading.
 * Is there some process in place where I can request an overall review of his behavior on wikipedia, for further consideration of what action may be appropriate? (I'm willing to do some research and delve into some of his history, if that's useful, and pull out a summary of some of the behavior that may be most helpful to examine.) Infoman99 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:9313:B900:7DDC:C6B6:7CF9:D981 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: Stale)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

There also appears to be disruptive behavior on other pages, this account's first edit was the first revert on Rata Katz. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . First, you were edit-warring as much as the IP, and, second, you were accusing the IP of vandalism, which, because it was not in the least justified, was a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:86.8.201.75 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts at The Falcon and the Winter Soldier:
 * 1)  "So your just ignoring Fiege introducing him as “Daniel Brühl returning as Baron Zemo from civil war”"
 * 2)  "Please just watch the expanding the universe documentary you’d save us a lot of time and effort"
 * 3)  "At this point it’s clear your trolling and being unconstructive if this continues I’ll have it report it"
 * 4)  "Here’s a clip from expanding the universe, go to about 1:24 Fiege says returning as baron zemo https://youtube/2-kfCldxMq8"
 * 5)  "Again you obviously didn’t watch it as your heat Fiege introduce him as Baron Zemo, here’s an extract from marvel.com from the initial report on the announcement form SDCC The documentary revealed concept art for Falcon and the Winter Soldier's updated looks. Feige revealed the streaming series will look at both of their pasts as well as both of their present post-Endgame. In addition, Daniel Brühl returns as Baron Zemo, last seen in Captain America: Civil War, and Emily VanCamp as Sharon Carter"
 * 6)  "Did you even watch expanding the universe Fiege literally introduces him as baron Zemo, marvel.com states baron zemo https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/marvel-cinematic-universe-after-avengers-endgame"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts at Spider-Man: Far From Home:
 * 1)  "At this point it’s clear ignorance you’ve ignored everything I’ve said, I’ve given you the names of the sites to look at for yourself and still you continue your disruptive editing"
 * 2)  "Now at this point your just here causing disruption, if you actually bothered to do your research you’d know marvel doesn’t recognise it officially"
 * 3)  "Maybe if you watched the films and checked the official marbek website you’d see they don’t recognise it as official and I’m pretty sure the marvel.com website is more reliable than some news site"
 * 4)  "At this point this is borderline vandalism as you have repeatedly ignored what I’m saying and have repeated to engage in an hour edit war, so if you want to stop then now would be a good time"
 * 5)  "A lot of those sites have become somewhat questionable especially considering they stated Robert Downey Jr will be back for What If even though he clearly isn’t and they’ve been wrong about stuff before, which is why we need an interview in the source."
 * 6)  "Look kid that’s just a placeholder name a lot of sites have gone with, Fiege said her initials were MJ, with Michelle being stated to be making up the M and her last name starting with J, but the meaning of the J has not been officially confirmed so a lot of sites have gone with the fan given name, which is by no means official."
 * 7)  "It doesn’t link to the interview in where it is stated so it still isn’t official because some news site said so Be my guest search marvel website for it or try and find an interview where Fiege, Pascal or Watts states her last name as Jones because I can’t find anything at all."
 * 8)  "Actually the burdens on you to prove it’s real I can’t find any mention of the name Jones in either film in the credits past the post credits scenes, or in dialogue or even in interviews or merchandise like funko pops, only sites that report it are like full circle cinema and we got this covered and MCU cosmic which aren’t exactly reliable"
 * 9)  "Stop putting in unofficial information"
 * 10)  "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources existhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research"
 * 11)  "Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, and since Jones is only reported by unreliable sources and originated on the MCU fan wiki in June 2017 it is classed as original research"
 * 12)  "Pleas stop inserting information that originated on a fan wiki as no official source exists for her last name as Feige and Watts have only called her MJ or Michelle, no confirmation her last name is Jones from anyone at marvel and Sony, only sites reporting it anyway are generally unreliable ones like full circle cinema which is nortoriously unreliable"
 * 13)  "I watched the first film and she was only called Michelle and MJ at the end and never called Jones at all in either films or in the credits for both films or from official marvel sources  Let’s go over why this classified as original research: 1. The last name Jones first appeared on the MCU wiki in June a month prior to any news site starting to use it  2. The news sites that are using it are mostly unreliable and tend to copy one another 3. Her last name is not listed on any merchandise for th"
 * 1)  "I watched the first film and she was only called Michelle and MJ at the end and never called Jones at all in either films or in the credits for both films or from official marvel sources  Let’s go over why this classified as original research: 1. The last name Jones first appeared on the MCU wiki in June a month prior to any news site starting to use it  2. The news sites that are using it are mostly unreliable and tend to copy one another 3. Her last name is not listed on any merchandise for th"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. (TW)"
 * 2)   “November 2019” 3RR warning for Spider-Man FFH
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There are at least 6 more instances of removing the same info on the FFH page alone since the report has been made--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I've added IPs 86.8.202.75, 86.8.201.235, 80.2.22.145, 80.2.20.201, and 86.8.200.20 to the list since this user is hopping IPs performing the same edits Alex listed in the report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Try this again, since I think what I did was incorrect. Closing admin, please also see, , , , and . This is the same user making the same edits, hoping IP addresses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that Simmerdon3448 is equally guilty of edit warring against consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have reverted the problematic IP so often I agree. If the IP has shown they're only going to revert moments later he should have waited for the page to be protected or the IP to be dealt with by an admin. Esuka (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought it up to the appropriate parties. I posted disruptive editing and 3RR warnings to his talk page, which he ignored. So I did take it to the talk page. Just because it wasn’t the page you wanted DOESNT make me equally guilty of edit warring--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You went way overboard with the reverts. It's not as if the IP was adding anything that is technically vandalism. The current page revision could have been left on the page until an admin came along to resolve. Esuka (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP was removing sourced information. That’s vandalism--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive editing at most and certainly not something which required you to revert them 21 times on the page. You could have reverted once or twice, left a few warnings about their behavior and requested that the page be protected. Esuka (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can anyone protect the above pages in the meantime? -2pou (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe a request has already been made for the appropriate pages to be protected, there's just a backlog at the moment. Esuka (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: The page is subject to a 1RR limitation, as one that is clearly part of the Israeli Arab conflict: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction : "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. " Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Mr.User200 here, First revert made in "Good Faith", Here come the Suns did not read carefully the link and source provided in the edit. It clearly states the discussed facts as: 1 aircraft lost, 4 helicopters lost" and narrates how this losses took place. Also the second paragraph or the article Section ( 2006 Lebanon War ) clearly explain the events and the tally. Dont know why here comes the Suns continue reverting over and over, content already covered in the article itselt.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Mr.User200 has self-reverted which makes a block for violating WP:1RR unnecessary. Please use discussion to find consensus before editing again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Shawndwu reported by User:Creffett (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Russell Marcus is not associated with the TV Show Corn & Peg. Please do not undo this change. Source: I work at Nickelodeon"
 * 2)  "Russell Marcus is not associated with the TV Show Corn & Peg. Please do not undo this change. Source: I work at Nickelodeon"
 * 3)  "Russell Marcus is not associated with the TV Show Corn & Peg. Please do not undo this change. Source: I work at Nickelodeon"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 927974021 by 2604:6000:1114:CAF7:5593:2ED:923F:5C37 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Corn and Peg was not based off of a short from Russell Marcus - it was co-developed by multiple other people."
 * 1)  "Corn and Peg was not based off of a short from Russell Marcus - it was co-developed by multiple other people."


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


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


 * Comments:

I know I just gave them the edit warring talk page notice, but there have been a number of revert summaries by other editors warning them about edit warring (see, for example, the edit summary of Special:Diff/928039904). They've broken 3RR several times to repeatedly add unsourced content to the article and appear to also be editing logged out from 2604:6000:1114:caf7::/64. No communication on the article's talk page. creffett (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. There is a BLP issue here, since the IP is arguing that the creator of the show is Russell Marcus (a living person) while the sourcing of this claim is questionable. The IP has been busy restoring the claim of Marcus's authorship but has never joined in discussions. You have reported Shawndwu for edit warring but all they are doing is removing the unsourced info. In any case, they did not break 3RR. I don't see any evidence that Shawndwu and the IP are the same person (if so, why would they be reverting each other?). EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , ack, my bad, my (apparently sleep-deprived) brain somehow conflated the two separate reverters. Semi-protecting the page seems like the right approach in this situation, thanks. Sorry about that. creffett (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronbb345 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ;
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  Note: here the editor has recognized he was acting through his IP, without to log in.
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The situation on the article Macedonians (ethnic group) is worse → 6 reverts today. Jingiby (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

. El_C 19:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff-(older one - really no time and effort is spared to give detailed view of problems regarding questionable lines in prose, sources and their questionable readings and interpretation) diff-(my initiation is practically dismissed with one-liner response); diff-(mediator initiated second round of discussion is initiated and Ceha, SportingFlyer, Mhare and myself accepted) Rest of my attempts to make something out of this sambre TP discussion round: diff →(‎Let's get back on tracks w/o talking in circles: new section); diff →‎(Sources - check it, rephrase it, don't change its content & context: new section); diff →‎(Please respect TP: new section); diff →‎Donji Kraji mediation: new section)

Comments:

TP round-2 discussion between Flyer and myself was fruitful, so certain level of consensus was achieved, and Flyer included agreed lines into the article. Mhare later accepted sources, arguments and agreed lines. Meanwhile, editor Ceha rejected sources that were brought to this round of discussion, with continuously repeated requested that unsupported content (words, names, and some phrases) be included. At one point editor Ceha simply dismissed agreed changes, reverted to old version of article text, but then continued to edit article with inclusion of new changes, never discussed in TP and unsupported by sources, with addition of some poor choice of wording ("powerful", "briefly", "temporary"), style and English. All this times editor Ceha would regularly appear in TP, maintaining endless loop of same requests and to start again and again, like nothing is happening at article space (enormity of TP testifies to this, with only myself enduring in attempts to achieve something obviously unachievable - Mhare and Flyer are now gone).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware of that, and unless I wanted to put my self at risk of violating 3RR myself, I hoped that you will realize that all these edits are actually bits-by-bits reverts of achieved consensus, and in essence sabotage of 6 days of TP discussion, which was finally underway after several months of no-talk-only-reverts edit-war, without an end in sight. Now, editor practically pushed away other two participants and we are at square one again.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Santasa is uncoperative in TP, is talking about me there and not the article, and is very "unwikipedian". Could you please do something about the guy? He is basicly harassing me.
 * Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:6C55:4800:29E:21C4:E19A:B037:1BB8 reported by User:Skeletor3000 (Result: Range blocked)

 * 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 Christopher Lloyd. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Suspected sock puppet also involved: User:IMDbfan98 Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Special:Contributions/2600:6c55:4800:29e::/64 has been blocked six months by checkuser User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:David Gerard reported by User:Micah71381 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=928227753&oldid=928059946

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=928233275&oldid=928232265
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=928051926&oldid=928039068
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926619314&oldid=926618736
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926578276&oldid=926567057
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926507717&oldid=926487025
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=871659348&oldid=871654243
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=870847269&oldid=870735405

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See the comments section below for additional details and diff links. It is a complex case due to the involvement of an administrator with a much deeper understanding of Wikipedia policy than me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augur_(software)#Augur_(software)_revert:_extensive_unsourced_rambling
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augur_(software)#Removal_of_claim_that_CFTC_is_investigating_Augur.
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augur_(software)#$2M_in_betting_on_a_single_market_and_first_dapp_to_make_headlines.

Comments:

TL;DR (I really hope this gets read, as I put a lot of time and effort into putting it together as best I can as a novice Wikipedia editor):
 * 1) David has taken it upon himself to blacklist all cryptocurrency/blockchain related secondary sources.
 * 2) David has taken it upon himself to blacklist all cryptocurrency/blockchain related primary sources.
 * 3) David does not engage meaningfully in discussion when attempting to improve the quality of content on cryptocurrency/blockchain related pages.
 * 4) David follows a revert-first policy rather than a discuss-first policy.
 * 5) David does not read and thoughtfully respond to attempts at engagement/education on how an article can be effectively edited to have useful content.
 * 6) David's reverts often cause collateral damage due to WP:MEATBOT editing.
 * 7) (Personal Conclusion) David is bureaucratically censoring cryptocurrency/blockchain Wikipedia articles by setting up a set of rules that make it impossible to improve those articles.

This problem has been ongoing for some time because the user in question is a Wikipedia administrator, and far more familiar with the technicalities of Wikipedia editing than I am. This, combined with the General Sanctions on the topic in question (thus giving him the power to ban me without process) has caused me to proceed with a great deal of caution. However, I have spent countless hours researching this topic and I am reasonably confident at this point that David Gerard is neither behaving in the best interest of Wikipedia nor are they abiding by Wikipedia editorial standards (and definitely not Administrator standards). This report is likely going to be quite long specifically because David is well versed in Wikipedia bureaucracy and thus any simple/isolated claims will be shot down by him with a technicality (technicalities is what he has been doing all of his reverts based on).

IMO, the strongest example of abuse of revert power is the revert found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augur_(software)&diff=928228463&oldid=928209979 This is one of the last reversions, so it comes with a lot of backstory behind it, but I want to start here because I think it is a fairly clear cut case of an inappropriate revert and I feel it appropriately sets the tone for basically all of the reverts that have been occurring on that page (and many others) this month.

I removed the quote because, after reading the citation, I found that the cited article did not at all support the claim being made in the article. I proceeded to post to the talk page (in an attempt to avoid yet another revert war) to describe, in detail, why I removed the statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augur_(software)#Removal_of_claim_that_CFTC_is_investigating_Augur Sure enough, David almost immediately reverted this edit without any discussion on the talk page first (you'll notice that there is a recurring theme in this discussion where I try to engage with David to resolve the issues but receive almost no engagemet, receiving one sentence copy-paste replies instead). They did post a single short comment on the talk page after reverting my deletion, but IMO their comment clearly shows that they didn't actually read my commentary or the article being cited.


 * Brief Aside: As a normal Wikipedia editor, this type of behavior is quite frustrating. I understand that I may not be an expert in Wikipedia editorial policy, but when I spend hours crafting an edit, or trying to engage in discussion on how to improve a page and an administrator responds with a one-click reversion and a copy-paste one-line response it is incredibly demoralizing.  The editorial condect pages on Wikipedia specifically call out this situation and strongly encourage users to engage rather than just editing over each other, and while "technically" a one-line response is engaging, it isn't _actual_ engagement.  There is no attempt being made to improve the article in question, only prevent me (and others) from doing so.

The most common revert reason David has given throughout this issue is "Crypto Sources are not Reliable Sources". Upon inquiring where I can read more about crypto sources being considered not-reliable by Wikipedia standards he told me: WP:RSP categorises Coindesk as "generally unreliable"; the linked discussions concerning Coinbase detail the problems with crypto sites, note that it's the best of the crypto sites, all the others are actually worse and many are literally pay for play My understanding of this argument is essentially that "someone mentioned that CoinDesk is the best of the worst in discussion about whether CoinDesk should be allowed, and thus all crypto sites are blacklisted". At this time (and venue) I am not going to try to argue whether crypto sources are reliable or not, but I am challenging the claim that David has the authority to decide which sites are reliable and which are not based on a comment someone made in a discussion about a different source. I believe the proper process for getting all crypto sites labeled as unreliable sources is to engage with the broader community and get a statement included in the Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources page. It is not appropriate to take it upon ones self to label an entire category of sources as unreliable without discussion, even if you are an admin and even if the topic is under General Sanctions (1RR).

The second most common revert reason is "Primary Sources not allowed". Wikipedia has pretty clear guidelines that state that primary sources are allowed in some contexts, with an example of a company describing itself as being an acceptable source. Despite this, David has reverted every single edit that contained a "primary source" (any website related to the project that describes the project).

Along with the problem of applying the "not a reliable source" rule of his own making and "primary sources not allowed" despite Wikipedia guidelines disagreeing, David has shown no attempts to actually improve the article and chooses instead to insta-revert all edits made, including edits that are completely unrelated to what he is trying to revert. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926578276&oldid=926567057 is a revert that covers 5 edits by two different people. 3 of the edits I believe are what he calls "unsourced rambling" (a completely non-constructive comment) another was basically a language adjustment to provide clarity to a previously unclear statement, and one was just adding some formal titles to the headerbar. This example is in alignment with his general operating procedure which appears to be:
 * 1) See edit to Augur page.
 * 2) Revert edit to Augur page, site reliable sources and primary sources.
 * 3) If there is any talk, site reliable sources and primary sources again.
 * 4) Goto 1.

The broader problem here is that David appears to believe (supported in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Augur_(software)#Opinion) the following: Besides the problem of (1) and (2) being out of alignment with Wikipedia editorial policy, due to blockchain projects being referenced in mainstream media only in sensiationalist ways this means that it is impossible to actually describe the Augur project on the Wikipedia page in an encyclopedic way! The only option is to source sensationalist mainstream media news headlines, which IMO should generally not be included on a page outside of a footer section. To put it in another light, imagine if all construction trade magazines, news sites, journals, etc. were blacklisted and you were trying to write an article about a new construction technique. Mainstream media will not describe the technique anywhere, at best you'll get some headline and mention of how much some company raised in their Series A round. If David's process was followed for such a page, then Wikipedia would not get any meaningful content produced.
 * 1) All crypto sources are blacklisted.
 * 2) All primary sources are blacklisted.
 * 3) The rest of Wikipedia's actual rules on sourcing.

I am focusing this discussion on Augur, because I feel like there is value in keeping the discussion fairly focused, but this strategy is David's modus operandi when interacting with all blockchain related projects. If you look through his edit history and skip over the mass reversions of The Sun sources, you will find that he has a large number of edits on various blockchain related project pages that are all just reversions, little to no content additions and when he does add content, it is always a negative sensationalist quote from mainstream media (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monero_(cryptocurrency)&diff=prev&oldid=927107802), never meaningful content that helps flesh out the article with descriptive information about the business/product/technology.

My primary goal with escalating this issue to Administrators' Noticeboard is to try to get to a place where Augur, and other cryptocurrency/blockchain projects', Wikipedia articles can have encyclopedic information about the project, especially any novel solutions they may have.

I have attempted to engage with David on both his user page and the Augur talk page, and a quick perusal of his history suggests others have attempted to engage with him on this same topic in the past as well.

If other administrators would like any additional information, please let me know. I would appreciate it if such requests were not too onerus (in terms of time required to fulfill them), but I am willing to do some amount of leg work to get this issue resolved.

Micah71381 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The edits at the top show me removing bad sources on crypto/blockchain articles - which are under severe restrictions (WP:GS/Crypto) owing to having been subject to a firehose of spam in the past, much of it of this sort - extended unsourced descriptions sourced to primary sources or low-quality crypto blogs. I'm pretty sure none of this is anywhere near the definition of "edit warring", and is really a more general sourcing question - which would belong on WP:RSN or possibly asking for more eyes on it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptocurrency.
 * thus giving him the power to ban me without process this is incorrect, given I'm involved. I'm on this as an editor, if one who has experience as an editor, and expertise in the actual subject matter so I know my way around that too - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptocurrency so we can get more uninvolved editors who know the area along - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GS/Crypto does not have an impact on what is considered a reliable source. It merely gives extended permission to administrators for exercising swift action and imposes a 1RR rule.  There is no mention anywhere on that page about reliable sources for GS/Crypto being different from the rest of Wikipedia.
 * I brought this to edit warring due to your reversions without meaningful discussion/dialog/engagement, which I believe is the proper course in such a situation. We can separately discuss reliable sources elsewhere, but the primary issue here is that you are censoring all edits to the page (including many of mine) without engaging in meaningful dialog. The only path forward for me at this point would be to revert your reverts, which would be an edit war.  Rather than actually have an edit war (which is not healthy for the page), I preferred to skip to arbitration after failing to engage with you on the topic.  Micah71381 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 Can you provide some insight on why you chose to go with on this issue?  I am new to the administration process in Wikipedia and (of course) from my point of view this case is pretty clear cut as an edit warring problem, but it is entirely possible (even likely) that I'm not following proper procedure or I'm filing this in the wrong area or I misunderstand one or more Wikipedia rules.  Seeing as I spent many hours (the better part of a full day) on this issue, I would like to at least learn from the experience.  Also, is this case considered "closed" now that one admin has posted on it, or is there a more extended process, and you are just the first participant of many? Micah71381 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Nihaoma12345 reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision : Southeast Asian Peninsular Games 1959-1975 is clearly different from Southeast Asian Games 1977-2017. SEAP just for "Peninsular country" and SEA Games is for all ASEAN member states!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision. Primefac is stupid because Thailand is 7 overall champion in Southeast Asian Games 1977-2017, 6 another overall champion is in Southeast Asian Peninsular Games 1959-1975. So Indonesia is the most overall champion in SEA Games 1977-2017 NOT THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN PENINSULAR GAMES. Study more about SEAP and SEA Games!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 928348597 by Primefac (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 928345396 by Primefac (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See rather rude comments on my talk. User clearly has no interest in being polite, just attempting to convince me I'm wrong. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – bradv  🍁  14:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bkr3da reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Who disputed article 370 temporary ?? We need evidence do they have evidence to prove that ??? Only constitution is the evidence it's starts with world temporary itself .Some arguing doesn't mean that it's proof if you have solid proof let me know .If you have proofs only edit otherwise let be in the constitution wordings itself"
 * 2)  "Uuqj"
 * 3)  "Temporary Article Constitution itself start with this heading why rolling back ."
 * 4)  "Temporary Article Constitution line starts with this line"
 * 5)  "Added correction regarding validity"
 * 1)  "Added correction regarding validity"
 * 1)  "Added correction regarding validity"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Article 370 of the Constitution of India. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

A newbie editor, but seems hell bent on getting his way. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 I recommend starting a discussion about this specific topic (with a new section heading) on the talk page as a first step toward resolution. In that, try to explain why you think that the word "Temporary" should not be included in the quote, and encourage User:Bkr3da to provide details on why they think that "Temporary" should remain. The goal with Wikipedia is to provide useful information to users, and sometimes all words from a source are useful, and sometimes only some are useful. Perhaps a suggested potential compromise may be to exclude the word, but include mention of the temporary provisions elsewhere? Regardless of the outcome, since this seems like a content dispute, discussion on the talk page is probably the appropriate next steps here. Micah71381 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice . This is not so much of a content dispute because the article itself discusses the issue in detail, as I have mentioned here. For a new user to edit war with 3 or 4 editors from the get-go is a bad sign. He needs to hear from an admin that this is not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Defoxjuju reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked two socks and semi-protected article)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly changing article image against talk page consensus, most likely the same user as the previous IP editor. Has not attempted to join in the discussion on the talk page despite note in article and messages on user page.  Grey joy talk 05:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: User seems to be User:223.207.251.127 and User:223.207.250.215. User is also vandalizing most recent image on Wikimedia Commons. lullabying (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And User:Weizonexx has appeared with the exact same edit summary. Grey joy talk 06:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like the user is now at User:223.207.247.249. lullabying (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked the two socks and semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: The page is subject to a 1RR limitation, as one that is clearly part of the Israeli Arab conflict: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction : "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. " Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)

This editor was reported for a nearly identical violation on this very same page, just 3 days ago, and narrowly escaped a block after self-reverting. I don't think they got the message.
 * The latest revert its on the content of the article, that you errased without explanation. I left the battlebox like you left it. Also you continue CANVASSING banned Sockpuppets to go for your side. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avaya1#2006_Lebanon_War_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#2006_Lebanon_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F#2006_Lebanon_War

You continue with that un-friendly behaviour of reverting my edits regarding Israeli military articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Compare the earlier 3RR report which closed with a warning. It appears that User:Mr.User200 took no notice of the warning. But the filer User:Here come the Suns should be aware that it is useless to notify blocked editors of a discussion. Those editors will be unable to participate. Also, keep the rules of WP:CANVASS in mind. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Nemo1020 reported by User:White whirlwind (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (my first revert of the page, urging a talk page discussion, but was ignored and followed up by another revert (#8 above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (my first revert of the page, urging a talk page discussion, but was ignored and followed up by another revert (#8 above)

Comments: There appears to be a previous revert by this editor from a naked IP prior to making his/her account:.  White Whirlwind  咨   04:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked the user because of the nature of their repeated edits rather than edit-warring per se. If this were simply an edit-war, I would not have blocked at all because the user had zero warnings (edit summaries do not count, especially for new users).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronbb345 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not unsourced. It's literally written in the first paragraph of the History section."
 * 2)  "I got plenty of time to keep reverting this to the non-biased, historically accurate, non-nationalist Slavic Macedonian propaganda version."
 * 1)  "I got plenty of time to keep reverting this to the non-biased, historically accurate, non-nationalist Slavic Macedonian propaganda version."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:

Was blocked by a few days ago for edit warring. After the block expired, resumed reverting. Has indicated in one edit summary that will keep reverting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Shurbanm reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Does not conform to  WP:UNDUE policy. This only reflects one vewpoint of  one author. We need to cover more recent and other research. It is improvement. perhaps for you an improvement would be to delete everything?Undid revision 928433107 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 2)  "As I mentioned I am quite familiar with the policy. However it does not apply here. There is no undue Undue Weight assigned to one view point vs another in my addition. In fact my addition serves to reinforce this principle. As it is currently the undue weight is assigned to one author's viewpoint. Fischer's has 1 page on subject vs Merlinis much more substantial paper..Undid revision 928397073 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 3)  "The fact remains there is no consensus. Before there is consensus on the subject we should cover all opinions even though you may classify them as "fringe". Galileo and Copernicus were fringe at one point. Undid revision 928390159 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 1)  "The fact remains there is no consensus. Before there is consensus on the subject we should cover all opinions even though you may classify them as "fringe". Galileo and Copernicus were fringe at one point. Undid revision 928390159 by Doug Weller (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:UNDUE says */ FTN, AGF"


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


 * Comments:

See discussions at editor's talk page. 3RR warning is actually at  Doug Weller  talk 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Shurbanm (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Thank you Doug for the report. That being said I have already put forth clear arguments as to why my additions should be included and you have just ignored them choosing to cite the Wikipedia policy of Undue Weight and alleging I am contravening that by adding this information. In fact if you properly read my arguments you would understand that I am in fact doing this in view of that policy being upheld. As it is it is not as it shows only one POV and one that is not substantiated by any serious analysis whatsoever. What you cover as prevailing opinion is one author's opinion that is limited to 1 paragraph in his book on history of languages. The one I am adding is a substantial research paper which goes in depth on why the tablets in question are in fact language. I am sorry but I am at a loss as to understanding your rationale for excluding this more serious research on the subject and focusing on a more dated and much more limited one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurbanm (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael F 1967 reported by Andy Dingley (talk) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Repeated addition of unsourced content. WP is not WP:RS, especially not when the "source" article is terrible. Some discussion at User talk:Michael F 1967, but it was ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? So I'm OK to 3RR revert this nonsense, because that wouldn't be a violation either? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the 3RR rule is for more than 3 reverts. You can do 3 reverts without administrative action, you cannot do a 4th revert. Micah Zoltu (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but read WP:ANEW. You can be blocked (I have!) for single reverts.  But it seems that today, any old crap goes as "sourcing". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Michael F 1967 reverted only twice. His first edit did not constitute a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It didn't constitute WP:RS or WP:BURDEN either. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Serial Number 54129: WP:UP, "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." a user calling a terrorist group designated as a terror group by 28 European nations and the US as well as Turkey is without any doubt an extremely offensive material (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Serial Number 54129: WP:UP, "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." a user calling a terrorist group designated as a terror group by 28 European nations and the US as well as Turkey is without any doubt an extremely offensive material (TW)"
 * 3)  "Removing a terror-supporting template"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Harassment of other users on User:BarcrMac. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on User:BarcrMac. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* November 2019 */ re"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring on another user's User page: not good, particularly after having been warned by User:El C on ANI. Talk about overly invested... —— SN  54129  19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have self-reverted but calling a terrorists, freedom fighters is extremely offensive especially to me because I know a lot of innocent people who the PKK has killed.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @ patrolling admin: since SharabSalam has done the noble thing and reverted to status quo, I won't press the point. I appreciate your personal inflexion, and I also respect your losses; it is all to easy on Wikipedia for editors to forget that what we discuss and type have real-world implications and refections. But, honestly, you know as well as I do that we have our own processes to decide what's "right and wrong" in Wikiworld—and edit warring is never one of them  :)  ——  SN  54129  19:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , there 28 European countries that designates that PKK as terrorists and the U.S as well. The U.S. president has said that the PKK is probably bigger terrorist threat than ISIS.
 * Also I dont understand why saying that someone supports Hezbullah is wrong(like in user:Nableezy) while saying that someone supports PKK is right.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Does not appear to violate 3RR. Looks to be jumping the gun a little. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note this is the "edit-warring noticeboard", not the "3RR noticeboard". ——  SN  54129  13:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Now please familiarize yourself with other cases around here and you will see why this case was doomed. While it is supposed to cover all edit warring it generally only covers 1RR and 3RR violations. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Please familiarize yourself with this board. And in any case, your presence or otherwise is hardly relevant to either the filing or the result. ——  SN  54129  16:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, okay whatever you say. You are obviously wrong but okay, I'm done here. Take care. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, Serial Number 54129: "..I won't press the point", above, since the editor self-reverted. I hope that SharabSalam is aware that he is on thin ice. Wikipedia is not in a position to correct all the world's problems. In the mean time we need to follow our own rules. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Khirurg was asked by another to self-revert after the 4 rv within 24 hours but did not accept to do that.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

In the last revert's edit summary it was claimed that it was reverting back to the stable version, but in fact Khirurg added content without consensus. To the request for a self-revert, Khirurg responded with personal attacks, (after making personal attacks on the talk page) and with claims that the third diff is not a revert. Khirurg actually readded the same POV with a slight modification, from "perhaps" to "possible". Even the edit summary shows he is undoing another editor's edit "nope, west is crystal clear". The edit being reverted was: .Resnjari (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Bad-faith report by a WP:BULLY with a history of edit-warring on Balkan topics . This is not a revert . The report is a bad faith attempt at block fishing and intimidation. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The evidence of a WP:3RR violation is clear. In the recent Origin of the Albanians saga, you can misrepresent the edits of fellow editors, say they "dont have much to be thankful for in life" , and then turn around and say you're being bullied, it changes nothing. You violated the rule, and no ad hominem changes that.Resnjari (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As your own block log shows, your understanding of what is and what isn't a violation seems...lacking. Khirurg (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, voila ... more WP:PA... again.--Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointing out incompetence is not WP:PA, unless one tries to frame everything as a PA, in the desperate hope that something will stick. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In case there is a misunderstanding over ad hominem, it means attacking the person, not the evidence. 3rr violations are there in the diffs.Resnjari (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a harassing report which in addition to being harassment, it is also invalid. First, this incident is more that two-days old. Second, correcting the POV and sloppy edits of the opposition to conform to what the actual source says, is definitely not edit-warring, unless the opposition does not want the edit to adhere to the actual source. Khirurg's edits should merit congratulations not a WP:CLUEless report at this noticeboard. Dr.   K.  01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Please observe the following comment on Khirurg's talkpage by one of the edit-warriors: Although I do confess my own revert on West was misguided and based on a cursory scan, rules are rules, especially if you're going to start throwing wild accusations. Translation: "You were correct to revert my sloppy edit, but I am going to try to get you because I don't like your comments about me". Dr.   K.  01:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is me admitting my own failures as a way to say I am still willing to work with you (Khirurg) as a colleague, but you have to abide by our community principles, which include not violating WP:3RR. His response was to opine on my personal life. --Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no 3RR vio on my part. What there is, is a clique of bullies that tries to control Balkan articles and has repeatedly targeted me with bogus accusations and reports. They leave threatening messages on my talkpage and then complain "muh personal life" after threatening me with fabricated 3RR accusations. They keep showering each other with barnstars , and likely coordinate off-wiki, such is the speed with which they coordinate. They have a "good cop/bad cop" routine and claim to want to work with me "as a colleague" but then go block fishing at the first opportunity. That's what there is. Khirurg (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To say, wow, i'm surprised to see this kind of thing from you would have had some faint meaning once, many, many years ago. Instead, in its place only disappointment lingers. As a long term experienced editor one would think that you would know better then to cast WP:ASPERSIONS through ad hominem claims. As i will reiterate Khirurg, 3rr was violated.Resnjari (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, I suppose my occasional disputes are all theatre in your mind too? I can't even imagine how much time such elaborate plotting would take. Flattering, but no cigar, no WP:CABAL. Now, as for the 4rr: your first revert removed material added by BATO on the 26th, with intermittent edit warring over it involving multiple users-- Ktrimi reverted the part about Slavs and Greeks, you reverted the part about Illyrians. Number two is a revert of my removal of "perhaps" from the content I restored after its deletion (compare : mine [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=928236047]; previous ), you then edit war with me again over this point (a rephrase of "perhaps" to "possibly" is not a significant difference in meaning , that edit being a revert of ). Then, the finale, , which is a revert of actually multiple edits as you rolled back to your preferred version. Rules are rules

.--Calthinus (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most desperate block fishing attempts I have ever had to deal with. On the one hand it's "I am willing to work with you as a colleague", on the other it's "will someone pleeeeeeeeease block this guy". Yeah, you might think that's clever, but it's quite obvious WP:LAWYER. But since "rules are rules", let's not forget this racist outburst by you: "the Greek-invented concept of hypocrisy". For which you never apologized. I should give you fair warning that the next such outburst will be reported to WP:AE without further warning. Khirurg (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I said this before. This is a bizarre report. It is bizarre because the reverting editor admits that he made a sloppy edit after a careless look at the source. Normally, an edit-war is fueled by a fundamental disagreement among the edit-warring editors. If the opposition agrees with your edit, then where is the revert? The argument "rules are rules" sounds robotic and is devoid of editorial integrity. It reminds me of a similar argument: "Brexit means Brexit". See how far that argument helped Mrs. May's career. Dr.   K.  18:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can go around in ad hominem circles alleging this, that or the other, casting WP:ASPERSIONS of other editors here and there to remove the focus from what transpired. In the end this is a report about edit warring at the noticeboard about edit warring. 3rr was violated and there is nothing bizarre about it.Resnjari (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's better when 3rr is not about content disputes-- which this is not. It's about behavior.-Calthinus (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Dr.K., it's a clearly fabricated "gotcha" report, and the desperation is evident. It's also bizarre in that those who have engaged in racist tirades in the recent past are now talking about "behavior". Khirurg (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "gotcha" is the 3rr violations.Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that you don't get the point. Robotically repeating the same crap multiple times does not validate your clueless report. It is a characteristic of those espousing empty rhetoric, cf. "Brexit means Brexit". Face it, in your rush to harass your opponent you made an invalid and stale report. The faster you understand this error, the better it will be for you in the long run. Dr.   K.  22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As i will reiterate. The focus of this edit warring report is violations of 3rr, as per the diffs. Not Brexit or some other topical news item or to dabble in the WP:ASPERSIONS of others. In general, maintaining cordiality is best.Resnjari (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Repeating a falsehood like a broken record doesn't make it more true. But go ahead, keep repeating yourself, it seems to be working. Or...maybe not. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The diffs are clear, that is the evidence shows 3rr violations. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS and alike is off topic, to say the least. The noticeboard here deals with edit warring matters. It is not a WP:FORUM.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep repeating yourself. Go on. Khirurg (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made my report.Resnjari (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we can all see that. As we can all see that you are repeating a falsehood in the hope something sticks. Keep talking. Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What can be seen in the diffs is a 3rr violation. Its what this report is based on.Resnjari (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat. But one thing will not be washed-away. What can be seen from the diffs is fake news. Dr.   K.  03:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well i guess some humour is needed in these proceedings.Resnjari (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't seem to appreciate my "Brexit means Brexit" analogy, I thought I should change the example. Dr.   K.  03:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Brexit" or "fake news" are different topics. That said, every edit warring case has its own set of distinct circumstances.Resnjari (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * True, about your last statement. As far as Brexit and fake news, they may indeed be different topics, but they belong in the same category, that of the rise of empty rhetoric. Dr.   K.  04:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Empty rhetoric is for those without evidence. If there wasn't any, there would be no report on 3rr violations and i would not be here at the edit warring noticeboard.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes being a broken record is necessary. This is what matters, not if an axis of evil has aligned against you, not if you think others had "racist outbursts" (some Greek guy formalized the idea of hypocrisy to describe a phenomenon, as with formalizing the idea of a right triangle, this is not racist), not if you think your colleagues are "incompetent" and lack the capacity to comprehend basic rules on wiki, we can go around the moon and back with all the distractions here. No you do not get special exemptions, not even if your opponents were sent by the devil himself, because anyone can argue this, and especially in WP:BALKANS basic principles of conduct must be upheld.--Calthinus (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) . First revert removed material added by BATO
 * 2) . Second is a revert of my removal of "perhaps" from the content I restored after its deletion (compare : mine [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=928236047]; previous )
 * 3) . Third, you reinsert "possibly", which is basically no different from perhaps, hence reverting this edit
 * 4) . Fourth, you roll back a ton of edits, to your preferred version
 * – I am sure that many people can think of better ways of handling this issue in the future. In lieu of endless reverting, it should be possible to get a focused discussion on several points. In particular, Khirurg's revert of 28 November about the connection between Albanian and Illyrian mythology (based on Stipcevic's book) might be phrased as an RfC, and opened up for discussion. Our article on the Illyrians makes clear that the concept of the Illyrians is very nebulous. This unfortunately means that whenever the name 'Illyrian' comes up in a dispute between people of different present-day loyalties, the debate may continue forever. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Joseatienza reported by User:SatDis (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - IP address but believed to be the same before user logged in
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - Hi-5 (series 8)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and, and at my own talk page

Warnings for edit warring: and

Comments:

The user has also left messages on my talk page and continually threatens that they are a lawyer. They have left similar edits at Hi-5 (series 8) and Hi-5 (series 9), see here: and. They have vandalised my talk page with threats, and my user page

The user previously participated in similar behaviour and was warned in 2014, here and

It may be connected - the page Hi-5 (series 2) was recently protected due to ongoing disruptive editing by IP addresses, SatDis (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:103.91.160.90 reported by User:Skeletor3000 (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * However, I have also semi-ed the page since the disruption is only from the IP. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sridc reported by User:PrimalBlueWolf (Result: Both 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: - not involved in this edit war, but extensive discussion has taken place.

Comments:


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't block PrimalBlueWolf.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe mean that they blocked both Sridc and, the other editor involved in this edit war.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: The page is subject to a 1RR limitation. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)

In a somewhat comical manner, the user posted a notice on my page letting me know it is subject to a 1-RR limitation (making it obvious he is aware of the limitation), right after he made his second revert. Here come the Suns (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , The first edit is a bold edit not a revert and the second is the one revert to you. so I didnt break the 1rr. The bold edit is because the whole paragraph is based on unnamed source and the claim is exceptional. --SharabSalam (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that I made only one revert. You have reverted me saying that this is a long standing material and that I have to seek consensus first. Per Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", you shouldnt have reverted me.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the policy page Edit_warring: " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, " Your first revert, above, completely reverses the following edit. Bold edits that revert others' actions are still reverts. You still have a chance to undo it, I suggest you take it. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , LOL. I had no idea that a user had added that content 2 years ago which actually shows why it is completely wrong since the editor apparently doesn't have much knowledge about wikipedia policies and guidelines.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you think that content got there, if it wasn't added by an editor? read the policy page I linked, above: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."Here come the Suns (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already self-reverted. I still believe my first edit was bold. Although I don't care. You are probably trying to harass me since you have followed my edits reverting them. Have fun!.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Marked as 'No action' by User:Bbb23 due to the self-revert by SharabSalam. But the paragraph in question (about explicit Syrian govt. responsibiity for the gas attack) seems to hang on the words of one anonymous source interviewed by the Deccan Chronicle. If the Chronicle's report came out as long ago as 2017, you might expect that by now other sources may exist that we can use. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:EddyCodoZKazamaMrTabohZAMG reported by User:Sophiajoanne (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */ Don't Change I Said this is real Result"
 * 2)  "/* List of guests */ I Said Don't Changed ?!"
 * 3)  "/* List of guests */"
 * 4)  "/* List of guests */"
 * 5)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */ Don't CHange ?!"
 * 6)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */"
 * 7)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */"
 * 1)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */"
 * 2)  "/* Guests with the most appearances */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Had previously warned the user (Refer to: User talk:EddyCodoZKazamaMrTabohZAMG]]). However, the user made the same type of edits again and reverting the correct edits made by other editors after a little over a month. Sophiajoanne 09:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The user has deleted the October 13 warning from their talk page (as well as the 3RR notice) but  the warning can still be seen here. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – Instead of responding, the user went ahead and blanked this report, so I'm proceeding with an indef block. They were previously warned but never communicate. The concern back on 13 October was that they were warring to insert wrong information. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)