Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 928551128 by DragoMynaa (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

At the request of User:DragoMynaa, who feels Kumarcd is troubling him. Since Drago couldn't ARV Kumarcd himself, he asked me to, but I won't do anything more. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Kailash29792. If you can't say what the problem is with User:Kumarcd's edits, and if only one revert can be shown, it is unlikely that any action will be taken here. I do not see User:DragoMynaa participating in any discussions about these matters. You might have considered discouraging him from a noticeboard filing when he made his complaint about Kumarcd to you. If Vijay Antony performs in Tamil rather than Telugu-language films that is something for which evidence can be collected and presented at Talk:Vijay Antony. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is DragoMynaa. User Kumarcd has intervened since the beginning of this year and has changed Vijay Antony into a Telugu actor. In India, several films are dubbed, but the original language of the films indicate which industry the actor is most popular in. There is no need to list the dubbed Telugu titles of the film as #1) they are not as popular and #2)the main name of the film. Here is proof: Vijay Anthony - interview. In the video, Vijay Antony is speaking English as he does not know Telugu. His films are straight Tamil films that are dubbed into other languages. This reference proofs that he is a known Tamil actor:. Thank you. It is also evident that user Kumarcd is abusing his IP address account: 49.207.183.81. as that IP address has very similar edits to Kumarcd (it even undid my edit). --DragoMynaa (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * – Use the article talk page to work this out. Explain your point about the Telugu dubbing. The IP is not obviously a sock of anybody; they made only a single edit to this article in the last two years. If you can't reach agreement, you might ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nazimpatel67 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: blocked 36h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "ngfcbj"
 * 2)  "Added some information keeping in view the misinterpretations by people about the Patels from Maharashtra."
 * 3)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"
 * 1)  "misinterpretations of Maharashtrian Patels"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patil (title). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patil (title). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Patil and Patel ? */"
 * 2)   "/* Patil and Patel ? */"


 * Comments:

Keeps adding unsourced content despite multiple warnings, edit summaries, discussion on talk. They come back with arguments like "if I show you my family tree ". Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

by for 36 hours ~  mazca  talk 23:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:F2C0:E576:CD:402D:D7F3:C694:848C reported by User:Ifnord (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's Marija. Do not undo my work. You cannot claim to be a relialbe Wikipedia if you are allowing completely false information to be put on pages."
 * 2)  "J.M. is a Serb who is also a coward and is hiding behind a username. I have told you my full name, Marija Mandic. I posted on my Facebook profile that it was I who edited this page and no one else, so do not undo my edit. There is nothing linking Azithryomycin to Serbia. Slobodan Dokic is from Montenegro. And there is no reliable evidence that Roger Boscovich was a Serb. That was claimed by someone without any references to go on."
 * 3)  "I'm removing Azithromycin and Roger Boscovich's work from this page. My name is Marija Mandic. I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. Here is a link to my Facebook page for verification. https://www.facebook.com/marija.mandic.5496. If you're not a coward and can stand behind your edits, you should actually use your full name too and provide a link to your Facebook page."

Also note simlar edits under similar IP


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Serbian inventions and discoveries. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * by, caught in this rangeblock ~ mazca  talk 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:F2C0:E576:CD:402D:D7F3:C694:848C reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, I told you exactly who I am. I'm removing inaccurate information. If you had bothered to do any fact-checking yourself, you wouldn't have allowed it on here in the first place."
 * 2)  "Undoing Sadko's edits. It's Marija."
 * 3)  "I'm undoing it again. I'm NOT  sock puppet. There is NOTHING linking Azithromycin to Serbia. There is no reliable source (including Roger Boscovich himself) that can claim Boscovich was a Serb."
 * 4)  "It's Marija. Do not undo my work. You cannot claim to be a relialbe Wikipedia if you are allowing completely false information to be put on pages."
 * 5)  "J.M. is a Serb who is also a coward and is hiding behind a username. I have told you my full name, Marija Mandic. I posted on my Facebook profile that it was I who edited this page and no one else, so do not undo my edit. There is nothing linking Azithryomycin to Serbia. Slobodan Dokic is from Montenegro. And there is no reliable evidence that Roger Boscovich was a Serb. That was claimed by someone without any references to go on."
 * 6)  "I'm removing Azithromycin and Roger Boscovich's work from this page. My name is Marija Mandic. I'm not a sock puppet of anyone. Here is a link to my Facebook page for verification. https://www.facebook.com/marija.mandic.5496. If you're not a coward and can stand behind your edits, you should actually use your full name too and provide a link to your Facebook page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "poss. sock"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on List of Serbian inventions and discoveries. (TW)"


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

This is one of the countless sock puppets of Filipz123 (SPI archive, Long-term abuse page). It's not the edit warring that's the real problem here. It's the sock puppetry. See also the other recent addresses like 2607:F2C0:E576:CD:4127:A46C:1FEF:EAC0, 2607:F2C0:E576:CD:6D69:814F:152:9A98 or 2607:F2C0:E576:CD:B827:160A:EEE8:7D51—J. M. (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * by, caught in this rangeblock ~ mazca  talk 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ebob103 reported by User:Steven (Editor) (Result: User blocked 48h, suspected sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 928831783 by Formulaonewiki (talk)"
 * 2)  "Just a little more info that I've referenced"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See the edit history for more reverts by this user Steven (Editor) (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Pinging who has been reverted multiple times, I’ll be on here later to add more info, but if you can add that would be good. I also want to note that the user has also been warned twice on talk page by Formulaonewiki but has not taken this into account Steven (Editor) (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A brief run-down of events: The article has, for some time, been made up of original research and promotional content. Having been marked with notice templates highlighting the issues, no sufficient improvements were made nor reliable sources added or used so the content was removed (NB, sources are readily available as mentioned in my advice to an editor here). While less serious an issue, there was also concern raised over a self-proclaimed (then self-rebutted) role account making edits not in accordance with the guidelines at WikiProject Schools (as well as issues non-reliable sources). User has repeatedly reinstated the unsourced content, as well as the edits by the aforementioned user, with no improvements made nor justification given. Talk page warnings have been ignored, also as mentioned above. –  Formula One  wiki  09:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * NB: Another username, – presumably a new account (it is the account's first and only edit) – has reverted the most recent removal of the content by the nominator ( with the nonsensical edit summary, "Information is factual, correct, and produced within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies by order of REV CHARLES". (diff here: ) –  Formula One   wiki  22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ebob13 for 48h as a final encouragement to contribute productively, as the edits made have been quasi-productive albeit against consensus. RevCharlesChaplain blocked indef as an obvious sock/meat puppet. ~ mazca  talk 23:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * and, sorry to re-open the discussion following the result, but an IP user with no previous edit history before the result of this report has engaged in an edit war on Talk:U.S. Route 2 in Washington and then made a botched attempt to file a report on this page claiming it was me who filed a report. I have not made any such report (see the edit history on this page). Seems a bit dodgy, but not exactly sure what the intention is/what to do about it. –  Formula One  wiki  00:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
You know, I was already filling out a sockpuppet investigation for the following 4 accounts; Ebob103, RevCharlesChaplain, CSouthcott and SouthcottC — I was close to publishing it until I then noticed CheckUser had already blocked them meaning a report is not needed and now I gotta delete all the text I had written, the time it took me to do this, adding the diffs and going through the article history, ah dammit haha. Thank you Bbb23, I just want to ask you, are they all the same person and if yes, would it be better if they are tagged to the same category so things can be kept together? Nevermind, you did link them to one, I've created the category. Thanks for blocking the two accounts above before and all blocked now  so should have no more problems. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Edited: 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad luck! Good outcome nonetheless, thanks again.  Formula One   wiki  08:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikola22 reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It seems to me, after a series of discussions where the user was explained to Wikipedia’s policy regarding primary sources (1, 2) Mikola22 decided to show how bad they are and began to insert strange things in the articles with a formal reference to secondary sources. So, in an article about Light cavalry, he inserted a phrase that he pulled out and distorted from a book about a 30-year war. However, there he stopped the edit war. Then, in the article White Croatia, he inserted refs to 19th-century folklorists from the diploma work of some Zagreb student and an obscure slip of the tongue from an article in which the issue under discussion was out of the scope. Judging by his words on the talk page Whether Poland starts behind Hungary or Austria I don't know and you need see that on articles that speak about Poland, he does it consciously.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no comment except that to the article about White Croatia must come information that speaks about White Croatia i.e. Croats, in this case I quoted claim of academic Tibor Živković and two Polish sources. Everything is explained so there is no problem. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

. You need four not three reverts to violate 3RR. But please stop edit warring, both of you, across multiple articles — use dispute resolution and accompanying requests, instead. El_C 08:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the history of the article. He added this information before, but in parts: . And I have already stopped, that's why I am here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's from several days ago, so 3RR still does not apply. El_C 08:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Gem fr reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not post a 3RR warning on Gem fr's talk page before reporting this, but did post a warning on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, which Gem fr read and responded to. Gem fr is an experienced editor, and previous warnings about a WP:TPOC violation had no effect.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: I believe that I am at 3RR myself, and I acknowledge that that's roughly 2 RRs too many. I should have stopped after trying no hat and a whole thread hat. I will do my best to not go past 1RR in the future.

Essentially, this is a content dispute about whether microwaves do or do not heat ice, and the discussion became heated. I withdrew after realizing that I had lost my cool and then the editor on the other side (not Gem fr) made a few final comments and stopped posting to the thread as well. Not either of our best moments, but we both backed down and moved on. Then, out of the blue, Gem fr decided to hat one side of the content dispute only. I tried hatting the entire thread but Gem fr edit warred to keep just one side hatted. He also hatted the only citation either side posted. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I just looked at all four of those edits, and I don't understand how any of them could be described as hatting "one side of the content dispute only". In fact, it looks like it was hatted in a way so that Guy Macon got the (visible) last word.
 * ApLundell (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Good to see my intention can be so easily read when a fresh cool eye looks at it. see below for more Gem fr (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * good. Guy Macon just auto-reported himself.


 * 1) the first "revert" is NOT a revert : I only displaced the "hat" so that OP question, and answers before the flame, remained (as explained in the edit summary). (GM claim "Then, out of the blue, Gem fr decided to hat one side of the content dispute only" is just plainly wrong. What I decided, is that OP Question and (not perfect, but, still) answer, before the flame, had to remained -- again, as explained in edit summary. Significantly, GM just reverted, instead of entering some discussing about what should be hatted)
 * 2) the second "revert" is NOT a revert either: I displaced the "hat" again, in a try to make Guy Macon happy by keeping his last not-so-kind-but-still-acceptable contribution visible and leaving him the last word. To no avail, obviously. It is almost as if the flame was so important for all to see, according to Guy...
 * You'll also notice in history try to find a way out, between my "revert". He did not succeed either.
 * Also GM claim "I did post a warning on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, which Gem fr read and responded to" is silly: GM answered to a EricR something that is not a warning in any way, and I did not answer myself to what GM said (Not sure I will, not worth it)
 * So Guy report is just irrelevant as far as 3RR is concerned, actually. Now, the whole case is still to be considered.
 * My POV on this is as follow
 * Guy Macon just flamed, refused to consider other people POV , claim other people insult him when HE is the one being aggressive , and works very hard for the flame to go on and on, and, now, to have it spread here.
 * Basically GM is supported in his flaming effort by (who, somehow, was NOT reported by Guy Macon despite 4 genuine reverts     ; Your guess as to why is as good as mine, but anyway, this shows GM is not interested in revert rules or keeping peace), while just everyone else try to put a lid on it.
 * My summary of this it is here and here
 * the whole affair is at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. It really is a storm in a teacup.
 * Gem fr (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is crazy. I literally got not only a block but also a topic ban slapped on top for violating fewer policies. Neither Roxy the dog nor Guy Macon got even a block, despite both users showing a persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. And then people on here try to tell me that "experienced editor" privilege doesn't exist. Yeah, sure. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  18:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Gem fr here as there was a technical 3RR violation. Given the poor behaviour all round I do not think a block would have been preventative given that it's turned to some kind of talk page discussion. All parties need to disengage from this argument which appears particularly minor; if there are enduring behaviour problems between Reference Desk participants I suggest a discussion somewhere else. This little edit war was a symptom of another problem, not the problem itself. ~ mazca  talk 17:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you're warning one or both users? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I delivered a specific warning to Gem fr as they'd actually violated the specific 3RR red line while everyone was being silly, I didn't see a need to specifically warn any of the other 3-4 users that were being generally unhelpful in that discussion, as this report's been linked everywhere relevant already and i'm just poking a fire that might have gone out. I'm entirely happy for you or other admins to take further action here if I'm being too lenient here, but the specific edit-war that started here has stopped, and this doesn't feel like the place to solve any other simmering disagreements on the Reference desk! Cheers ~ mazca  talk 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was warned just before this thread opened. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Garrysumner reported by User:Rng0286 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Signed BY the President ANSSMCNZ"
 * 2)  "Signed the president of ANSSMCNZ"
 * 3)  "Iam the authority for all the info on sadistic Souls MC as I am the President of this club!"
 * 4)  "I am removing this because it is all lies"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Comment"


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


 * Comments:
 * Garrysummer has been blocked indefinitely by — Maile  (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User: Megan Parry reported by User:moroks (Result: page protected and both users warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=928912977 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=928971858
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=929215647
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=929218126
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=929223591

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levon_Khachigian&oldid=928912977

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

Comments:

I discussed the dispute by commenting to Megan Parry under each editing round arguing that all my added information have been refered to. Moroks (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Barneysss reported by User:A6397 (Result: Both warned)
Pages:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadenang_Ginto&diff=926527076&oldid=926524728
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadenang_Ginto&diff=927116308&oldid=927112378
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadenang_Ginto&diff=929225498&oldid=929224841
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadenang_Ginto&diff=929081342&oldid=929066639

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barneysss

Comments:

The user has a large history of disruptive edit warring from different users. Check the user's talk page, he always participates on edit wars. He always remove sourced content on articles within the scope of television programs. His edits are more personal than professional.  A 6397   T A L K!   13:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I base it on the source that is either not reliable or not officially credited to the full episodes of the program or after being aired on tv. All users are mistaken I know that. My point is that he has to make sure that he actually saw the character name on tv after broadcast or aired and full episodes. Barneysss (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why aren't you replying to any of the users who try to resolve the disputed edits on your talk page, you always revert stuff without trying to fix the problem and discussing it on your talk page.-– A 6397   T A L K!   18:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. Either User:Angelo6397 or User:Barneysss may be blocked if they revert again at Kadenang Ginto without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:John Hyams reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result:72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 06:04, December 2, 2019
 * 2) 12:17, December 3, 2019
 * 3) 09:19, December 4, 2019
 * 4) 11:45, December 4, 2019
 * 5) 12:01, December 4, 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

John Hyams is a friend of the BLP subject Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theorist on moon landings. They've been informed they are not supposed to edit the page due to WP:COI, but continue to do so while also ignoring the need to gain consensus for edits on the talk page. Their response in a diff above was This does not apply to me, and as a BLP article, we should avoid libelous slander. Even if it's Bart Sibrel. It was originally a slow edit war with multiple editors trying to work on Hyams' issues, but it's come to a head today where it also formally crossed 3RR. This subject is also under Pseudoscience DS, and I get the feeling we're heading towards a the need for a topic ban on Bart Sibrel under the DS. did try to give them some guidance on the talk page too, but I'm not sure if they are technically WP:INVOLVED in the subject or not as an admin. This most recent comment is also telling of the battleground behavior associated with the plow-ahead edit warring Being a NASA fan is also definitely a WP:COI, and you cannot be editing the page directly. This also came up at COIN, so I'm hoping edit warring enforcement can handle this before needing to escalate it further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I reject these accusations. All my edits are fractual, neutral, and with citations. This article of a living person is being blatantly used to defame a living person. John Hyams (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

. And I will be enforcing WP:ONUS with the authority of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. El_C 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edit5001 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: missing DS alert added, 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Looking at past edits, there were additions far larger than this without consensus, or even talk, on the Talk page. Undid revision 929282545 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 929240585 by Triacylglyceride (talk) Bring to the talk page issues with any edit that was made."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Abortion in the United States. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Straightforward 1RR violation. Opportunity was given to self-revert but they declined. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

. Added the correct DS alert! Sorry about that. El_C 20:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? There's a giant 1RR warning when you try to edit the page. So does this mean they "win" the edit-war? Can you at least require them to self-revert? This is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't help the arcane Arbitration rules with regards to awareness criteria. But yes, now that they are aware, the user needs to self-revert, soon, or they face sanctions (I thought their edits were already reverted — sorry, again!). El_C 20:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

. I gave the user the chance to self-revert, but they placed conditions on doing so, so I have blocked them for 24 hours. El_C 21:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:Ythlev (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The user insists on adding words to this module despite no consensus and the reasoning against it was given. The user dropped out of discussion and started to edit war instead. Ythlev (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a newly created module that needs to be actually accepted by the community before becoming used in a widespread manner on Taiwan articles. The minor romanization schemes are treated like they don't exist in the module and the official romanization scheme of the Taiwan government for Taiwanese is ignored, as well as Bopomofo which is widely used on the island. The module has its good points but needs to be actually cleared by the community not wielded like a bludgeon to assert Hanyu Pinyin primacy on Taiwan (the only romanization allowed to be named by its name within the module) in a way that is not reflective of the reality of the situation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So you justify edit warring by WP:IMPERFECT. Ythlev (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a good module at its core, but I'm afraid that no one but me will stand up for the non-Hanyu Pinyin aspects of language in Taiwan. Hanyu Pinyin receives an extremely privileged position in this module that is an exaggeration of its status on the island. A full review of the module must be made now, which will inevitably require more romanization systems to be named by name in the module. For instance, native Taiwanese people all use Bopomofo, which appears in the MOE official dictionaries (http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/jbdic/gsweb.cgi http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi). How come Mandarin is the only form of communication that is allowed to have a named romanization scheme in the module? How come it has to be Hanyu Pinyin and not include Bopomofo? The Template:zh module does a better job on this situation, allowing editors to add other romanizations as needed for certain situations. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The native languages of the area deserve better, and I hope a better way can be found to represent their written forms. It's one of those things were too much emphasis is being given to one side which doesn't deserve it, causing a bias in our understanding. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that the Tai-lo system should be named and linked where used and the POJ system should be named and linked where used, otherwise too much emphasis is given to Hanyu Pinyin over other systems of romanization. Also, Wade-Giles and Tongyong Pinyin are still in use in minority and/or historical situations in the island, and this module leaves that history out in the cold. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So you had more to say on the matter but you chose to edit war instead. We can continue the discussion on the page if you like. This section is for you explain about how edit warring without consensus is justified. Also, most existing uses of the template in that field are POJ instead of the official system, so the change is incorrect and must be reverted. Ythlev (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The template is better than what we have in some sense, but it also shocks the conscience by ignoring the names/existence of romanizations other than Hanyu Pinyin. I can't really stop you from doing what you are doing because everyone is too scared to mention that there's stuff out there beside Hanyu Pinyin, but I kind of need to try to resist you a little bit because there's a sense in which this module is actually a step backwards from Template:zh. Yes, Hanyu Pinyin is part of the equation in Taiwan. But it's given too prominent a place in this module. If you don't want to include the names of the other romanization systems, we are taking a backward step with this module. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

. This is not the place to discuss the actual dispute behind the edit warring. Please make use of dispute resolution (and accompanying requests), unless this is otherwise an emergency (which is does not seem to be), in which a report at AN/I may be submitted. El_C 19:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you revert the edit first? It is presenting incorrect information. Ythlev (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take a side in this dispute by editing the fully-protected page. The version that got retained by the protection is ultimately random. El_C 20:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for this action? If someone edit-wars saying the earth is flat and you protect the page before it gets reverted, does that stay for a week? Ythlev (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, when it's that obvious, obviously not. El_C 20:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So what happens next? I wait a week then revert it, the edit war continues, you protect the page again? I think you are just encouraging more edit wars. Ythlev (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What happens next is that you make use of dispute resolution (and accompanying requests). El_C 20:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created the request that was proposed (lang); If the user is concerned about accuracy, I suggest not putting POJ and Tai-lo in the same parameter. Why would you do that in the first place?? Template:zh is already miles ahead of this template in that area. If the romanization is so unimportant to name, then adding the word 'pinyin' is not needed. But it IS needed: we should tell the reader what romanization scheme the are looking at (as we do in all other modules). Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Spatzenversteher reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked one week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If there is a neutral check, then I will get through with my edits. But you obviously have 3 different accounts here, that's the actual problem!"
 * 2)  "Yes, Wikipedia runs on scientific facts, that's why your "academic sources" are irrelevant and inappropriate. Governmental institutions of a democratic country with the highest Human Development Index of the world should know best about the structure of population within their country. Again, the sources for the statistics are the official ones from the state, not from any unknown people in foreign countries. You obviously don't want to know these facts and create your own truth!"
 * 3)  "In Germany (where authorities should know best about the population structure of the country) the main source is the Federal Statistical Office that states around 2,7 million Turks and people with Turkish roots live in Germany. The "Mikrozensus" asks people for their former passport and even the ancestry of the grandparents. And by the way, the scientific level there is among the highest in the world, in particular compared with non-European countries. So these permanent changes are rediculous!"


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


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


 * Comments:

Account started edit-warring removing sources from the article since 16 October. Made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours today. However, this is revert number 5 since 4 November, and number 6 since 16 October. Clear case of POV-pushing, including PAs in edit-summaries. It is obvious this account will not stop removing this information from the article. Dr.  K.  23:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yunshui 雲 水 12:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Lake.zero reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=929194274&oldid=929187430
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=929231925&oldid=929202107
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=929251567&oldid=929242936
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=929356200

Comments:

This user keep reverting edits with saying "Fixed typo" while it's a page with one revert rule in 24h. Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note I left a warning on the users talk page about claiming this was just undoing a typo. This is not (to my mind) just a case of edit warring the user is clearly not here. I also note that Beshogur may have also breached 1RR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you exactly explain where? It might be misunderstanding. Beshogur (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope that User:Lake.zero will explain why they shouldn't be blocked for using the false edit summary 'fixed typo' while actually removing sourced content from the article. They removed the content three times on 4 December, on an article which is under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which do you mean, the warning or your breach of 1rr?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Breach of 1rr of course. Can you link it? Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first revert [], your second [], there are more reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This was not a revert. I added that source for the first time. Second link is a revert. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that a revert is an edit that partially or wholly undoes another users edits ". A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (wp:editwar), thus yes you edit warred.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions "was a cross-border military operation" and "Although the main combat phase did end, post ceasefire operations are still ongoing.", this means the operation did end, so I am not doing any edit war, I added there a source that the operation did end with major victory for Turks and minor victory for Syrians, for the first time. That's not a revert. Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I said you may have done, not that you did. I will now let others decide.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. User:Lake.zero has failed to respond, and continues to mark every single edit as 'Fixed typo', even while removing material. I'm also alerting them to the community sanctions under WP:GS/SCW. User:Beshogur is on the edge of violating 1RR themselves and should be more careful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will be careful next time. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Declined Muboshgu has self-reverted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 929629318 by SharabSalam (talk) Lots of them do though: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/17/695545252/more-than-300-chemical-attacks-launched-during-syrian-civil-war-study-says"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 929628605 by SharabSalam (talk) You wanting to deny international consensus doesn't make this article POV"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */ Replying to Muboshgu (using reply-link)"
 * 2)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */re"
 * 3)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */ Replying to MrX (using reply-link)"


 * Comments:

The article is sanctioned to 1RR. The editor is refusing to discuss and instead feels joyful when he edit war. There is obviously a NPOV problem in article and there is a discussion about the issue. SharabSalam (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Refusing to discuss? I'm discussing. The talk page shows I'm discussing. You're being quite bull headed in trying to vandalize an article by orange tagging it. What is "obvious" is that you're denying the international consensus that Bashar al Assad gassed his own people with chemical weapons. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again the article is sanctioned to 1RR. The editor still believes that his own opinion is superior to other people. There is no international consensus that Assad gassed his own people and there is still an investigation. I dont know in what world there is an international consensus but you seem to be unaware of anything about the Syrian civil war.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the United Nations saying so is the international consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * . Muboshgu has self-reverted – bradv  🍁  03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Muboshgu (talk): Rv see the talk page. The source doesnt say that Assad was responseible for the attack. (TW)"
 * 2)  "See the talk page"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */"
 * 2)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */ Replying to SharabSalam (using reply-link)"
 * 3)   "/* Unacceptable POV wording in lede */ Replying to SharabSalam (using reply-link)"


 * Comments:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. BRD restriction in place. Editor vandalized the page with an NPOV tag over his/her refusal to acknowledge Bashar al Assad gassed his own people with chemical weapons, and reinserted the tag when it was removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu: Can you provide a version of the page prior to SharabSalam's first edit where the NPOV tag was in place? Otherwise, that first edit is not a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , this was the version before the NPOV tag was added. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , wants to force his opinion that Assad has gassed his own people. Something that most Syrians dont believe and unsupported by any source. He wants to provoke us.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this some sort of mutually-assured destruction? Judging by the talk page, SharabSalam's concerns with the lead have been addressed, so there's nothing to do here. – bradv  🍁  03:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not my proudest moment on Wikipedia, I'll say it that way. It's a chance to see if there's a WP:BOOMERANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can't see anyone protecting the article over an NPOV tag, so just self-revert and both of these reports can be closed. C.Fred is right, SharabSalam's first edit was not a revert. – bradv  🍁  03:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , okay, fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are provoking us(me and the IP) with your unsupported claims. The IP has addressed the issue and the source says that Tulsi raised doubt about the evidences not as the article suggest that it has been confirmed that Assad gassed his own people.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous reported by User:Sunhapan (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported: Anonymous

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

Comments:


 * 331dot (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:JatBrand reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Temporary full protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 929582708 by Mahavirsinh18 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undead revision by Mahavirsinh18"
 * 3)  "Undead revision by Mahavirsinh18"
 * 4)  "Jai Jai Rajputana"
 * 5)  "Undead revision by Mahavirsinh18"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring going on daily for more than two weeks in a single article. Only one warning placed, but given the editor's previous aggressive behaviour (extremely vulgar edit summaries with personal attacks - see TP warnings) I am of an opinion that a block is warranted. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you protect the Juna Padar. JatBrand (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have rolled back to the last stable version, this version from 16 August, and fully protected the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Both editors have also been made aware of the discretionary sanctions that affect the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan subject area. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Would you mind tagging the page with protection template? Cheers, — kashmīrī  TALK  12:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Annamargarita0 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 929442122 by Livelikemusic (talk) I didn't add the date because it wasn't confirmed, but it's definitely airing next month!"
 * 3)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on The Voice UK. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has a previous edit-warring block log history, and continues to participate in said-behaviour, despite reverts to their edits on this page. And I suspect they might be using an anonymous editing IP to help their edits, as well.  livelikemusic    talk!  13:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Correctus2kX reported by User:Koncorde (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Each revert is making the same claim:
 * That there is a difference between Liverpool and the Liverpool Authority (otherwise known as the city of Liverpool) and treated by all statistical agencies as one and the same. If there are other definitions of Liverpool, bigger or smaller, I have no idea what they are.
 * Recurring attempt to say that the "Liverpool / Birkenhead" metropolitan area is the "Liverpool" metropolitan area. Unfortunately the statistics being used in this case refer to a long outdated study that is not being used anymore, but in the absence of updated statistics it is being applied still (the met area of Liverpool was historically identified as the 1.5m people largely in the contiguous areas of Merseyside east and north of the river).

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

Renewed
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I looked at using all other dispute resolution, but they all require the other user to be contributing / talking, other than through edit summary, which this user is not.

I did not 3RR the last time there was an edit war by same user because they ceased after I posted my message to their talk page. On their return they have continued. 

There is no reason to report as there is no 3RR - I have not made more than 3 reversions in 24 hours. This report is spurious and should be dismissed.Correctus2kX (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So if I corrected, you would revert right? It is the definition of an edit war by editors pushing a POV not supported by any evidence. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I first attempted to communicate via edit summaries. I then subsequently explained via the users talk page the issue at hand. 

I subsequently copied this with additional comments to the Liverpool talk page 

I have also sought assistance at the cities project, but before I could make more notices for discussion at alternative dispute venues he has reverted once again and also left a message at my talk page which indicates the user is not going to discuss. 


 * I have attempted to communicate the issue via edit summaries and the user's talk page. These efforts have been ignored and the user has continued to revert unnecessarily.Correctus2kX (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have never communicated anything, and left a single message at my talk page asking me to prove you wrong. When I have done so repeatedly, it was ignored and you continue to push your POV. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

User makes spurious allegations that this edit war is personal. In actual fact I edit Liverpool and related Merseyside articles because I work there, and have worked and lived in Liverpool for several years on several major projects in the region. I just also happen to understand what national statistics mean and how they are meant to be used.

For clarity and openness, his complaints relate to edits made several years ago when a particular user was POV pushing particular edits to Liverpool page to aggrandise the city through nonsensical statistics and misinterpretation. When they began wilfully misrepresenting myself, I stepped away.

Any edits I do around / associated with Liverpool at present appears to be interpreted as some kind of grudge against what is "my" local city because I oppose misinformation and aggrandisement through the misuse of POV words such as "at the heart of" and "central" and possessive statements.

I have not yet reverted the most recent edits subject to outcome of this process and it's recommendations / suggestions. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not made more than three edits within 24 hours to the page; the user Koncorde has been asked by numerous users to stop deliberately misconflating local authority boundaries with the total extent of a city. The wording which I have reverted the page to (which was the original introduction before Koncorde's misconflation edits) is consistent with other UK city articles, such as Cardiff and Birmingham. I have not used the words 'at the heart of' or 'central' in any of my edits. It is widely accepted that there are multiple definitions of city size. Koncorde does not accept this and insists that only local authority boundaries are legitimate.Correctus2kX (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to revert 3 times in 24, your sequence of edits have been reverted and you have never explained your reasoning despite being promoted. Your only defence has been to try and attack me personally, and provide no evidence of your point of view.
 * For example of why you are wrong, let us take Cardiff's urban area. The Cardiff Urban Area is not Cardiff, it's the Cardiff Urban Area which is the built up area containing multiple other towns based on a specific methodology. The equivalent for Liverpool is Liverpool Urban Area and under no definition is Ashton in Maker field "Liverpool" and nor should we conflate the Urban Area as being somehow "Liverpool". This persistent misrepresentation of something you cannot even provide a source for, and neither could Richie previously, is exactly why the Liverpool lede is a running joke. Koncorde (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:188.77.231.152 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

See page history, it is obvious.


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


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

Left message on user page about issue - User talk:188.77.231.152
 * Comments:

This is long term slow moving edit warring, not a 3RR violation. This was first added in 2014 by another IP used by the editor and removed in 2016 as inappropriate as part of a cleanup of the page. Since October 2019 editor has added the same 15 times which I have reverted with comments mentioning its being redundant info. I have left messages on the user talk page, including this, No responses or any attempts to communicate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Vallee01 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=929708708
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=929709405
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=929709978
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria&type=revision&diff=929708945&oldid=929708872

Comments:

This user did 3 times revert in one revert article. Putting sources which doesn't even mention the clashes are continuing, or using old sources. If you look at the sources he used now, all are old sources and only reported by one man ruled Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Also other users failed to provide sources that the offensive is still ongoing. The offensive did officially end with the Sochi Agreement. Small skirmishes are going on, however those are not so big meaning the offensive are still going on. Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . The user made 8 consecutive edits today. Please read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Krimuk2.0 made bold edits that significantly altered the article's lede section as well as a paragraph in the body. I then altered their edit, attempting to bridge the difference between the old version and Krimuk2.0's version, which you can find here. They then continued to blanket revert even the slightest edit that I made back to their version and later told me to discuss your revertions in the talk page.

I did as they suggested, during which I cited/quoted multiple guideline articles such as MOS:INTRO, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V in support of my edits, to which they replied with more questions regarding my opinions without offering explanations for theirs. They also blatantly asked Why should a "guideline" have to mention something as basic as that, confirming their own failure in adhering to any guideline or policy, and ended the discussion with I'll wait for other editors to weigh in because it's impossible to engage with someone who refuses to see merit in anything that's not their own preference. KyleJoan talk 10:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Misinterpret me as you may, your version of the lead with the claim that he "gained wider recognition for his supporting roles in the coming-of-age film Lady Bird and the western Hostiles" is still unsourced with no mention of it in the article body. Also, my statement was to invoke WP:COMMONSENSE for basic logic such as not having three reviews from one publication be mentioned in one article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * . . . your version of the lead with the claim that he "gained wider recognition for his supporting roles in the coming-of-age film Lady Bird and the western Hostiles" . .. I tried to make it better per the agreement we had on the article's talk page with this edit, but you reverted that too. May I also point out that the last edit I made on the article is more similar to how the paragraph looked prior to your bold edits?  KyleJoan talk  10:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Krimuk2.0 suggested that I read WP:COMMONSENSE, on which I learned that. . . instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance, which I believe Krimuk.20 has not done. KyleJoan talk 10:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This: "If there are already two THR reviews in the article, find a different one. There are reliable sources apart from Variety and THR, who publish reviews" is an explanation. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators please note that KyleJoan did not attempt to resolve the dispute. I started the talk page discussion, here. Also, I did not continue edit-warring without consensus, you did. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And you had consensus? KyleJoan talk  10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Who reverted after the discussion began? You did! So who needed consensus? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. However you want to assess the situation, these edits incited the dispute and therefore are the disputed content. And I only see one revert after the discussion began, and it was not done by me, so let's ask this one more time: who really needed consensus? KyleJoan talk  12:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You are both edit-warring. You are both warned to restrict your edits to the Talk page. Any further reverts by either of you may be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention regarding the matter, . KyleJoan talk  14:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:49.195.103.221 reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (last week, ~ 1 December 2019)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (04:39, 9 December 2019)
 * 2)  (00:59, 10 December 2019)
 * 3)  (01:17, 10 December 2019)
 * 4)  (02:07, 10 December 2019)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (01:09, 10 December 2019)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempts to discuss on the talk page hasn't helped. The IP is merely questioning my motives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bishonen &#124; talk 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:‎81.111.251.142 reported by User:Iffy (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/930102165

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/930116074
 * 2) Special:Diff/930104072
 * 3) Special:Diff/930103186
 * 4) Special:Diff/930102598

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/930104286

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion on talk page

Comments: Clear edit warring from the IP, not 100% sure about the other users involved, but the IP has definitely broke 3RR. Iffy★Chat -- 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 331dot (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:98.224.51.125, User:2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77 & User:2601:346:67F:9AD0:2587:7426:7D82:9AFC reported by User:Alcibiades979 (Result: Semi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.224.51.125 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:346:67F:9AD0:2587:7426:7D82:9AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:346:67F:9AD0:4CE6:9A51:A999:2A77
 * Page:
 * User being reported:, , ,
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

One of the users accounts, that of : 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930149480&oldid=930145974 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930149620&oldid=930149518 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930150292&oldid=930149620 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930152095&oldid=930151634 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930153671&oldid=930152157 3:5 are 3,000 character chunks

Same user's account but with slightly different IP : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930081989&oldid=930078220 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930074859&oldid=930063387
 * 1) These two are what he writes originally, they get rolled back by and  at which point on his other IP he begins edit-warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.224.51.125
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Left message on user page about issue - User talk:98.224.51.125

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Bolivian_political_crisis&diff=930151817&oldid=930145641
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

I'm not particularly good at the wiki code, probably should have learned it. Anyhow, there are three IPs that I'm almost positive are working in conjunction, since all three are out of Jacksonville Florida, and comment exclusively on the same things at the same times. Which is sock puppeting, I think. Has made repeated massive reversions of the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page which amount to vandalism. It's also worth noting to correct the vandalism I myself have broken the 3RR, should this not be considered vandalism on his part, or if someone just tells me I'll happily revert my edits. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected 2019 Bolivian political crisis for 2 weeks due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. If this editor has valid points to make they should use the talk page and wait till they can convince others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Orientls reported by User:Squatch347 (Result: Protected the redirect)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is the version user is attempting to maintain.

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

Discussion on merge on talk page including :

Comments:

There was a [| discussion] on the Talk page to merge the articles, which was done by after a majority of editors agreed to redirect the article after several attempts to hijack the page by sockpuppets. (Tabiti, Falconfly, Mmcele, Aurornisxui, 5.226.139.140, 85.194.243.243, 85.194.243.243); See: | Falconfly Sock Investigation and Tigril34 Sock Investigation. Squatch347 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This issue might now be moot. I recommend closing the request now. Squatch347 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected the redirect, since the talk discussion has closed as Merge. This protection can be undone if a new consensus emerges. As Squatch347 observes above, this page has been troubled by sockpuppetry in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Matianian reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

User refuses to cooperate / understand WP:RS and has a behaviour that resembles that of a WP:BATTLEGROUND one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There is not a violation of 3RR here. There is a content dispute between Matianian and HistoryofIran. I am inclined to revert back to the last version that appears widely accepted and protect the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no further reverts, I'm closing this with no action taken. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could the original revision be restored by any chance? A site named http://www.conflicts.rem33.com is clearly not reliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not immediately convinced that the site is not reliable. You will need to discuss the matter at the article's talk page or WP:RSN. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh boy.. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:120.21.47.167 reported by User:Paleontologist99 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:118.149.244.216 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly inserting content that has been reverted by several editors. No edit summaries or response on talk page to messages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Talu Arain reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link I posted this on their talkpage at 15:55 today, with the last revert, above, happening at 18:20.

Comments: This user keeps changing the location of the upcoming cricket tour between Pakistan and Bangladesh without providing any sources, or communicating on their talkpage. They started this morning, to what I thought was a good-faith edit, which I dropped a polite note on their talkpage. Both myself and Spike 'em have posted on this user's talkpage to offer help, but they've just gone ahead and reverted without explination/sourcing. The rest of their edits have involved adding false information, such as this, suggesting WP:CIR issues.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * – bradv  🍁  04:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sennen goroshi (talk) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sennen goroshi (talk) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sennen goroshi (talk) to last revision by Dennis Bratland (TW)"
 * 4)  "No reasons rooted in sources cited to justify WP:UNDUE issues. Nobody but ignored editor has supported this; see Talk page guidelines"


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

Here is the discussion. Sennen goroshi refused to let anyone properly format the discussion, so the best thing was to simply ignore him, per WP:TALK. This was before proceeding to provoke the same battle with an entirely different editor, over indenting. Not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, only to fight. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Gaming the system because they think Wikipedia is their battleground. This guy picked a fight today with the politest, most Canadian editor you’d ever want to meet. Over indenting comments. Indenting. It’s all a game to him, to see who he can get one over on. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * did not revert the article after receiving the 3RR warning. INstead, left the 3RR warning at 00:09 and filed the AN3 report at 00:15; Dennis made no edits in the interval between those events. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked 31 hours by User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ජපස reported by User:slatersteven (Result: Alerts, 1RR on article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The first revert was to old material added long ago (5 years ago removed without discussion), but it is still a revert of another editor. No effort was made to resolve this or justify it on the talk page just this [] and some snotty edit summaries. In fact followed up with this [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor: These two are going after each other at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Without taking sides, I suggest that an administrator examine the situation and apply sanctions as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is within the pseudoscience DS area, so I have applied 1RR to the article and notified both editors. – bradv  🍁  04:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Closing this report per the DS alerts and the 1RR imposed on the article by User:Bradv. Jps's post "Please let me be as I clean up our UFO articles" is not a sufficient justification for reverting. Consensus is needed for controversial changes. Accusing the other party of WP:CIR when it's actually a disagreement about sourcing is getting close to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:Neutrale Person (Result: Page move-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: the user has reverted 4 times my edit by removing two times the sources and info which I had added and by moving the page twice and changing the name of the page. Neutrale Person (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it's up to the admins' interpretation on whether its two or four reverts. Admins should check the ANI-report by me as well. --Semsurî (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation An editor who edited and moved the page three times is reporting an editor who edited and moved the page twice? That's slightly illogical.  User:Neutrale Person, as I said at the admin noticeboard, your change is controversial and therefore you should be discussing it on the talk page (which is currently Talk:Kalhor Kurds), not edit-warring over it. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected to temporarily prevent moves, but there is not currently protection in place to prevent editing. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:F2C0:E74C:67:C58B:EAA7:5979:F072 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Plus 3 more since this was filled... 9 reverts thus far with an IP rapid revision warning.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930235239 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 930234995 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 930234811 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 930234440 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 1)  "/* Lyrics */"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP just blanking any message sent to them.....not here for the community. Moxy 🍁 03:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sportsplex03 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Sockpuppet blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930297269 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Without due citations, please do not change the Subjects title line. Also, there are multiple sources that lead to investigation on the SJP. Please do not utilize the platform for politically motivated messaging."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 930278524 by Primefac (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 930278524 by Primefac (talk) Primefac is being intentionally contentious. This requires moderation from an UNbiased source."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930278524 by Primefac (talk) Primefac is being intentionally contentious. This requires moderation from an UNbiased source."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Everett Stern. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Everett Stern. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tactical Rabbit section */"
 * 2)   "/* Tactical Rabbit section */"


 * I'm with NorthBySouthBaranof here. What I have not had the time to look into in detail is the COI matter. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And we may have a NOTHERE block waiting to happen here--certainly POV and AGF are serious issues here. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This can be closed - has blocked them as a sock. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ComedyRulesTheWorld reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: blocked WP:NOTHERE)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930336127 by Praxidicae (talk), rv Zionist prpaganda"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 930307705 by Praxidicae (talk), get consensus"
 * 3)  "/* Antisemitic Humor */ cleaned up"
 * 4)  "/* Antisemitic Humor */ h>H"
 * 1)  "/* Antisemitic Humor */ h>H"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Some Classics" section */"
 * 2)   "/* "Some Classics" section */"

Not only are they edit warring but also making blatant personal attacks Praxidicae (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:

1. This is about edit-warring and not personal attacks; that is a separate page. 2. I have read the edit-warring policies and I have not breached 3RR. Yes I have edited the page, but I have not made a 4th revert in 24 hours, or if so, it has not been demonstrated and I have not been given the chance to fix it. ComedyRulesTheWorld (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What part of Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. is unclear to you? Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:71.190.0.231 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "uh, yeah, no it wasn't... Horowitz is a Democrat and Obama-appointee...a sourced fact.  Simply asserting "unnecessary editorial information" does not make it so. PERTINENT FACTS...like his party affiliation is all a sudden "unnecessary" when convenient. Even this Democrat Obama-appointed FBI-protecting HACK admitted wrong things done by the FBI in 2016. Durham and Barr completely disagree with the white-washed elements. Regardless, "I DON'T LIKE" is not a valid WP reason to undo. Restored at 3RR"
 * 2)  "No valid explanation given at all...(against WP rules and drift) undid a contribution that is sourced and factual. No valid reason for revert, of accurate factual sourced information.  "I don't like" is not a good reason....   This is a WIKI...so "no own".....     Suppression of valid facts that you don't like or that don't fit your bias or ideology is against Wikipedia policy and protocol."
 * 3)  "no reason for revert, of valid factual sourced information.  "I don't like" is not a good reason....   This is a WIKI...so "no own".....    No explanation given for accurate addition by other contributor..... restored"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Old warnings and comments are available in the page history, visible to everyone, even if you blank the page"


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


 * Comments:

Previous 3RR warnings blanked by IP. Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked 72 hours for personal attacks or harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:The Grand Delusion reported by User:Anthonyg3281 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I usually keep track of the Nicktoons schedule and have had no problem making updates on what's airing and what's not. I usually get the information from Zap2It, which is an official TV schedule website. However, The Grand Delusion has been reverting my edits such as upcoming Christmas rerun airings of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Back at the Barnyard, Sanjay and Craig, and Breadwinners in 2 weeks. He says that one-off airings do not count as rerun air dates, so I tried telling him that they are not one-off episodes since they are only rerun air dates and not regular run airings (as I've been keeping track of the last air dates for Nicktoons), but he still won't listen. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Comments:

This report should be thrown out. There is no violation of WP:3RR anywhere here, and I feel that this report is overall in bad faith. Also, Anthonyng's statement of "they are only rerun air dates and not regular run airings" contradicts his edit here, where he moved the shows in question to "currently broadcast". The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There has only been a single revert to the article, so there is no brightline violation of 3RR. There is also no discussion on the talk page: it hasn't been touched for over a year.  You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's talk page and work toward consensus for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Samp4ngeles reported by The Four Deuces (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:59, 10 December 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  02:31, 12 December 2019 "fixed link on this citation, which is notable given that it contradicted CDC guidance at the time. It also helps add context for anyone researching the SARS issue. It would be of interest given her presidential candidacy. Perhaps also notable given that she and her father took the same stance."
 * 2)  02:49, 12 December 2019 "Sorry, TFD, but if you read the citation that it clearly wasn't the CDC's position -- and if you go to your own source on the talk page (the CDC link), you'll see that it said, "In the United States, where there was limited transmission of SARS-CoV during the 2003 SARS outbreak, neither individual nor population-based quarantine of contacts was recommended." See )"

The text added back was " advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:05, 10 December 2019

Comments:

The article is under 1RR. The editor was previously warned and reported about edit-warring on this article and received a warning from an administrator. I asked the editor to revert but they refused to do so. TFD (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for violation of the 1RR. The user was asked to self-revert but declined to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael N Gichuri reported by User:Kuru (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: First addition, as IP

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:19, simple revert
 * 2) 16:50, re-addition of unsourced material
 * 3) 08:31, simple revert
 * 4) 07:59, simple revert
 * 5) 07:44, simple revert
 * 6) 05:19, simple revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned at 12:26

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started by Veikk0.ma, no participation by subject.

Comments:

Simple violation of 3RR to repeatedly introduce an unsourced claim by a clearly COI and self-promotional account. Kuru  (talk)  18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:108.30.105.141 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Declined)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930279865 by Larry Hockett (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 930257248 by Larry Hockett (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 930128486 by Larry Hockett (talk) unexplained removal"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 930128486 by Larry Hockett (talk) unexplained removal"


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


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


 * Comments:

This seems to be a general problem for this IP - I assume WP:SPAM, since all the edits to several pages are to point to the same blog. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 06:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a dispute over whether this link -- -- is valid or not.  108.30.105.141 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I got carried away. The edits came across to me as blatant spam (especially given the lack of explanation for why this personal web page represented an exception under WP:ELNO #1 and #11). I see now that removing spam is not really an exemption from 3RR. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Larry Hockett: On the one hand, it's not enumerated on WP:3RR as an exception to the brightline. On the other hand, the correct place to report obvious spam is WP:AIV, the vandalism noticeboard. In future, report spammers there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit seems a might suspicious: welcoming a newly created user account with zero (0) edits. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In the case of the IP, because it has gone quiet for several hours, and because there's no evidence it's a static IP, I'm not going to block the IP.
 * In the case of, who was added to the report by the IP, I'm going to err on the side of assuming good faith that he thought reverting blatant spam was a 3RR exception. For future occurrences, the user is advised to report the spam at WP:AIV and not cross the 3RR brightline.
 * Additonally, I'm watching the Kingdome article and would not hesitate to block the IP for spam if they were to readd the link without gaining consensus at the talk page or if there is further edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additonally, I'm watching the Kingdome article and would not hesitate to block the IP for spam if they were to readd the link without gaining consensus at the talk page or if there is further edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User seems to have moved to a new IP: 207.140.167.27. Previous IP in Brooklyn, this in Newark, exact same style on same articles. Should this go to SPI? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have warned the user and reverted the edits. It could go to SPI, but it's obvious enough that AIV would also handle it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Honest Yusuf Cricket reported by User:Christianster94 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (14:46, 11 December 2019)
 * 2)  (22:00, 10 December 2019)
 * 3)  (21:59, 10 December 2019)
 * 4)  (01:20, 9 December 2019)
 * 5)  (22:56, 7 December 2019)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Honest Yusuf Cricket is making a substantial addition to the "Controversy" section in which it states the crows are accused of being stereotypes of African-Americans. He's made useful additions like the name of the leader being changed sometime ago and posting some commentary sources defending the characters. However, he insists on posting an entire text of an essay from a former Disney animator named Floyd Norman who denies the crows are harmful stereotypes. I have attempted to mitigate his edits by posting only the main gist of the essay. However, ever single time, Yusuf Cricket has reverted my and other users' edits and re-posted the entire text the way he wants it.

Basically, his additions, as well-intentioned as they are, make that section particularly read long and cluttered. It also gives more weight to the defending side when I feel violates our neutrality rules. Yusuf Cricket has been told numerous times by other editors on their talk page to stop being non-constructive and I attempted to discuss with him on the article's talk page, but received no response. He's already surpassed the three no-revert rule. Christianster94 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @Christianster94: I don't see where they have crossed the three reverts in 24 hours brightline. That said, there needs to be some discussion on the talk page. Thank you for starting one about the crows. Please consider bringing in more voices with a request for comment or for a third option if the discussion stalls. I have advised HYC that if they do not engage in discussion and a consensus emerges, they could be reverted for going against the consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred: That's only because I didn't revert quickly enough and I also didn't want to become participatory in edit warring. It's been going for almost a week ago and I'm nearly fed with the user. HYC has made no attempt to discuss his changes despite being directed to on his talk page, and I see again HYC has reverted the changes I made last night.


 * I'll hold out a little while longer, but based on his edit history, HYC wants to keep his changes no matter what. Christianster94 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The User:Honest Yusuf Cricket continued to add back his material, including the word 'Liverpool', at 02:25 on 13 December after this edit warring report was open. This edit came after the warning on his talk page by User:C.Fred. HYC seems unwilling to accept others' opinions that his material is excessive and risks violating the copyright of the original article by Floyd Norman. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Peteski132 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Important facts with factual sources cited should definitely be in the lead and in the article. Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section"
 * 2)  "If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Shouldn't important facts with factual sources cited be in the lead and in the article? Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section"
 * 3)  "I already went to talk page with no response because these facts of the utmost importance (with factual sources cited) belong in the lead, and in the article."
 * 4)  "Many editors "went with me"; why do people have a visceral reaction when facts of the utmost importance are stated with factual sources cited?"
 * 5)  "Many editors "went with me"; why do people have a visceral reaction when facts of the utmost importance are stated with factual sources cited?"
 * 6)  "Please don't undo facts of the utmost importance from the lead or article, with multiple factual sources cited.  Why are people having visceral reactions when facts of the utmost importance are states with factual sources cited?"
 * 7)  "Multiple editors also "went with me" because facts of the utmost importance belong in the lead"
 * 8)  "Multiple editors also "went with me" because facts of the utmost importance belong in the lead"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 930515923 by RotarenegEmem (talk)  Stop removing facts of the utmost importance from the lead"
 * 10)  "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead,  with multiple factual sources cited"
 * 11)  "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead,  with multiple factual sources cited."
 * 12)  "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead,  with multiple factual sources cited"
 * 13)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 14)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 15)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 16)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 1)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 2)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
 * 3)  "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * – 72 hours by User:Rmhermen. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User: Redditor132 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
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: Here and here.

Comments:

Editor is obviously adding their personal POV to the lead while describing the addition as solely factual and as "the most neutral possible text." Username says it all. And so does this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also take note that this removal by me regarding the "Years after the incident" piece is not part of my dispute with Redditor132. We have both removed that piece. That piece is in the stable version, before Redditor132's edits as this IP and as the Redditor132 account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I kindly ask admins to read the original and compare it to my edit, then assess which is more neutral and factual. This person wishes to keep the clearly one-sided inflammatory introduction despite it being inferior simply due to the fact it satisfies his/her point of view about the matter. Wikipedia should be the one place people can get facts, not be just another tabloid. Redditor132 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You were also reverted by me and by Beauty School Dropout. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you didn't receive any traction for the edits you want to make as an an IP, or with an account. I imagine you will have a difficult time finding consensus to make said changes as they are definitely not neutral, despite your claims otherwise. The 3RR report was valid when made though it appears to be now; that being said, if you attempt to make further edits to the lead in this vein without first obtaining consensus on the talk page, I imagine a block will be forthcoming.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look I get the point. Women insist every man deserves it whenever this mutilation happens to him because they have some weird hatred/disgust of this particular male bodypart. Write a blog or post it on social media. You can even go on Television. But I don't understand why you want to omit the neutral fact that John was mutilated right after he filed for divorce. Or the fact that after the arrest she told the police that she did it because he was selfish in bed. The original version is most certainly not neutral, I think you can all agree. My edit adds some facts. If you want to word it in a different way but keep those facts please do.Redditor132 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The venue to make any further arguments would be Talk:John and Lorena Bobbitt; however, if you continue to use Wikipedia as an avenue to peddle ludicrous claims such as "Women insist every man deserves it whenever this mutilation happens to him because they have some weird hatred/disgust of this particular male bodypart", you will be shown the door in short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll make it as simple as possible. The original edit of the article is inflammatory, non-POV, and attempts to justify and take the side of the mutilator. All I did was add facts of the case. Why are you against that?
 * And yes it's a fact whenever mutilation of this particular part of the male body happens most women will indeed laugh and say he deserved it. This is just female nature. It's the reason I've got so many hostile female editors trying to revert me and ban me over my edit.Redditor132 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: I'm marking this report as Stale per User:Ponyo. Though the reported user, Redditor132, would be making a mistake if they try to do this revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor as NOTHERE based on their latest comment on this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hirolovesswords reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No explanation for removal of sourced content"
 * 2)  "sentence does not violate Biographies of living persons or undue weight. The incident is notable and well-documented, it belongs in the article (see WELLKNOWN)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 930482358 by GridIronFootball (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 930378542 by GridIronFootball (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mike Kelly (gridiron football). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting contentious material to a BLP despite being advised Edit-warring to shoehorn in a potential BLPVIO? Take it to talk, get a consensus of editors who agree with your assessment and there you have it. But as you must know better than me, BLPs always verge towards caution. —— SN  54129  20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Also noting, as I murmured elsewhere, BLP concerns take precedence, and per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content, however long it's been in the article. —— SN  54129  20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just an added note, it looks like the person they were mostly reverting claims to be the subject of the article. Also as mentioned at help desk this was discussed in the past at BLPN. PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Hsinghsarao (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts as seen by (additional detail!): These diffs replace the diffs provided by the original reporter.
 * 1) 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930600384 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - While there is no general consensus on the Lead's layout, I looked towards the Lead for the 2017 General Election article to determine how best to present this
 * 2) 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930601084 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - It does not change the nature of what the Lead states. Instead it outlines things as clearly as possible.
 * 3) 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930602746 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Unexplained reversion, no reason given
 * 4) 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603114 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - There is no need to revert it for grammar and spelling mistakes; just fix them yourself. The general outlay of this Lead is to detail the general result of the election when it was called for, the reasons behind the election taking place, and the results for notable parties that gained/lost seats
 * 5) 16:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603529 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Layout of Lead is fine. People can amend if needed, but the layout you propose is problematic
 * 6) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603725 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - I made clear in an EDIT SUMMARY ALREADY.
 * 7) 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Rving edits - Official Results put Labour's losses to 59 seats; do not duplicate a statement about worst loss for Labour
 * 8) 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930606774 by Aréat (talk) Sources are reliable, and DO NOT STATE THIS RESULT!!! Labour lost 59 seats. There is no evidence to show it was 60 (This was self-reverted after 3 minutes)
 * 9) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930610730 by Executiveop (talk) Rving edit - Unnecessary addition. It is not given that nickname by anyone in official sources
 * 10) 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930624450 by GHDmnespafro (talk)
 * 11) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930630206 by FM913067555 (talk) Rving edit - I believe another editor stressed it overcomplicated the Infobox. Such a detail is best left to the main bulk of the article
 * 12) 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930633260 by Dlíodóir95 (talk) This is something to discuss on Talk Page, really. I've checked along all the articles for General Elections, and although it's hard to tell, they don't show anyone having anything in "( _ )", except where two parties formed an alliance. (This was self-reverted after 34 minutes)
 * 13) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930644218 by PlanetDeadwing (talk) Per British Law, the Speaker of the House of Commons severs all ties to their affilated party upon being elected as Speaker. Thus this result does not include their Constituency Seat for that party; they represent themselves for it as an Independent..
 * 14) 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930649468 by GoodDay (talk) Rving edit - There are plenty of sources that dispute the change. If the change is to reflect the party that Speaker of the House of Commons came from, read the article about what happens when they are elected to the role.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #

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

Comments:

I believe this user is not making these edits in bad faith, but the format of the lede he keeps restoring is very poor. Me |  Talk  17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The warnings to the user on the talk page were also reverted by him, inexplicably.


 * 1) diff original state of the article, before edit warring began.

This person also made early non-constructive edits and then before trying to force his version of the article on to the page despite numerous spelling and grammar errors and without giving a reason to change the original form of the lede, aside from saying that it was 'problematic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsinghsarao (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) diff
 * 1) diff

The persistent reverting by should be of great concern. Only 12 days ago, he was involved in an edit war at List of The Grand Tour episodes where he reverted 6 times in 3 hours. On that occasion I left him a warning and noted that he had actually violated 3RR, but chose not to submit a report when he posted to my talk page claiming he was going to stop. After seeing this edit war I believe I made a mistake as GUtt01 seems unable to control himself when editing. did indeed leave GUtt01 a notification about this report but left the warning before compiling the report, which is why GUtt01 removed the notification. At least that's what he said after I opened a discussion on his talk page in an attempt to resolve the problem. At that time he had made 8 reversions in an hour. However, his responses clearly indicate that he does not understand he did anything wrong. He even said I don't believe I did anything wrong., after he had already reverted 8 times, instead continuing to try to blame the other editor. In that same minute he went on to revert a 9th time. My advice to stop editing the article was clearly ignored because he went on to revert several more times and he has continued to revert as shown in the detailed diffs that I added above. Of the 14 documented reversions, 2 have been self-reverted but that still leaves 12 reversions in 7 hours which is well beyond the 4 needed to violate WP:3RR. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And he still doesn't get it. After posting the above, he left this message on his talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. Per his comments at User talk:GUtt01, GUtt01 seems not to grasp our edit warring policy. ("I understand, but I don't believe I did anything wrong"). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:VOR707TRX reported by User:You've gone incognito (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:


 * User insists on reverting the already neutral term "anti-abortion activist" (referring to opponents of abortion) to "pro-life activist", which Wikipedia has long been opposed to as such political framing does not adhere to a neutral point of view and is loaded: . His argument in my talk essentially says that "anti-abortion" is biased and panders to leftists (which generally are pro-choice), and went on to soapbox his personal views on the issue to get his point across: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:You%27ve_gone_incognito&diff=930533866&oldid=929736453
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by You've gone incognito (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:VOR707TRX is warned they may be blocked if they revert again without getting prior consensus on the article talk page. I'm also alerting them to the discretionary sanctions on abortion under WP:ARBAB. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:114.4.79.86 reported by User:Wira rhea (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:


 * – 31 hours by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Parekendo361 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: WP:SPA account is repeatedly inserting unsourced and blatantly promotional content into the article and has ignored 3 previous warnings on their Talk page to stop doing so. Getting difficult to assume WP:AGF and a block seems to be warranted. Note that the editor had several other edits (insertion of WP:PROMO content and copyright violation/plagiarism) that were reverted in the preceding days (Dec 10-11) but they were gray lined so I couldn't link them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SerVasi reported by User:Sadko (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor is pushing his POV and not respecting Manual of Style/Lead section, which He/she/xy knows very well (He/she/xy quoted the same rule on this and other articles). He/she/xy is is pushing modern-day ethnicity/nationality. Beara lived, worked i.e. played for Yugoslavia. I belive that this new user is not here to build an encyclopedia, which can also be seen from this terrible case of whitewashing of one chauvinistic and fascist figure - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ante_Star%C4%8Devi%C4%87&diff=928722141&oldid=927967015&diffmode=source

The source which this editor is pushing on Vladimir Beara is an interview in a local tabloid in which the author claims that this particular football player declared in a certain way on the official censuses. He gives no explanation of how he got this info and the notion is controversial (how he got that info or anything else). It's a good case of not going per Reliable sources and not cooperating with other editors.

One more dark thing, one of the diffs states: ''I would tell you to swim away but then i remembered the great Serbian coastline. Anyways the author is well known and respected, the newspaper was verified by another editor. His life choices of staying in croatia during the war also confirm this. Still waiting for a valid counter argument. Provide it or tractor away.''

She/he/xy refers to Operation Storm. This means that SerVasi is cheering for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people - ethnic cleansing. In this operation, several hundreds of old civilians were killed and thousands of homes burned. Those are facts.

I am well aware this is not the place for this matter, but I will also point out that this could easily be a sock, located in Zagreb (the same style of edit warring as seen on Ivan Gundulić). ty  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric reported by User:La_vérité_gagne (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric is continuously trying to remove all the positive content and references from WP:BLP article Asaram. Gurukul death case is closed now, but his intent is to still keep majority of section filled with outdated info and he is removing the references or content which are factual. Also since 11 December 2019 onwards he has ade almost 25 edits on this page trying to page the entire page tone further negative. I tried to resolve the conflict on talk page but it seems he is using tools like twinkle in order to revert my edits. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * I notified the user about this discussion here and before that also I tried to initiate discussion for resolving the issue. But he simply reverted instead of having a discussion: And I suppose this user has rollback rights. Please check if he is using the rights in the way supported by Wiki policies. La vérité gagne (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Morton Thiokol reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Stale)
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:

Schrocat says: "I have given you details of two of the major style guides that support what I have said" Where? I see you insisting you are right, but no supporting documentation, only assertion. I, however, have provided supporting proof that a colon precedes an enumerated list. Where's your proof? Thanks! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I left details on your talk page some time ago. You have not referred to any external guides, just your assertions you are not in error. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed link to an external guide, right there in my Edit summary. Here it is yet again: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/colon.html I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. Where's your link to an external guide saying that it's acceptable to use a comma to precede a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; you don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. Morton Thiokol, please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Style rules are debatable. But grammar rules are not. How noteworthy that you opt to defend a provably incorrect use of punctuation by a user who can't provide any support that his misuse is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FFS, I am not sure just how you have not taken on board the fact that there is no single way of doing things in English: what was there before you began edit warring was grammatically correct, and it was consistent with the rest of the style in the article. Please get it into your head that your way is not necessarily the only or best way to do things. I suspect you'll be back at this noticeboard several times in what will hopefully be a short wiki-career. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edit5001 reported by User:Triacylglyceride (Result: Alerted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&oldid=927403458

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930539977&oldid=930537483
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930487433&oldid=930426722
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930399741&oldid=930399364
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930383368&oldid=930379273

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Countries_to_list;_how_to_list_views

Comments:

Hi. First time making a report on another user. I believe this article is under 1RR because of it's relation to abortion; the user in question made three reversions in 24 hours. I want to confess that I've realized my own reversions have, on occasion, fallen just below 24 hours. I'm a casual Wikipedian, and check once a day or so. I'm open to criticism on that count. Normally I wouldn't escalate at this time, but I saw multiple related warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks for your time, and I apologize if I'm misusing this tool. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * is coming off a recent block for 3RR violations at Abortion in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no editnotice at the article for a 1RR restriction. Was  given a DS alert related to this topic area? —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question: yes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the article was 1RR so I apologize if it is, I was following 3RR. There has been an issue here with Triacylglyceride failing to address my points/concerns (or the points/concerns of multiple others) on the Talk page, never offering any type of consensus we could agree on in the edits, and at times flat out stops responding even when politely pinged for a response. I suppose I should have asked for arbitration or something along those lines, but I really hoped we would've been able to resolve this through discussion or simply adjusting eachother's edits instead of having mine simply reverted. I've had many instances in the past where myself and other users worked on edits together, listened to eachother's points, and reached compromises where we disagreed. This person, after many days, has still been unable to do that. Edit5001 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like for you two to sort this matter out at the article's talk page, rather than edit war on the face of the article. I see promising signs that you two are doing that. The article is not currently under 1RR, and I would like to keep it that way—but if the edit warring continues, I reserve the right to place the article under that sanction. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sounds good. I had a wrong impression from the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Edit5001 has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions on abortion. It now appears that discussion is taking place. See especially the above comments by User:C.Fred. Both parties are reminded not to edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC on whether to include Poland and Malta if the two of you can't come to an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Applodion reported by User:DongFen (Result: No violation; DongFen indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite 5 users, 2 IP's 3 accounts having consensus on the removal of the material at the talk page, and only 1 objection by Applodion. Himself and 2 others who are not participating in the discussion are restoring the said material. DongFen (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good lord, could we at least try to resolve this peacefully without you accusing me? I have presented my arguments on the talk page, and offered to talk about soilutions, yet you ignored my position. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Five users oppose you yet you revert all the five. Admin intervention necessary. DongFen (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I and two other editors who held a similar opinion as myself. I have constantly taken part in the discussion on the talk page, presented my arguments, but you ignored them for the most part (though you did add texts to the descriptions instead of deleting the images which I positely acknowledge, though I still did not understood why the additional text should be neccessary). Applodion (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just indefinitely blocked DongFen as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: No violation)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:  I know it is not against the 3 revert rule, he only reverted 3 times. The other revert was made by someone else. But he refuses to read the UN sources I provide. He says it is original research or a primary source if one cites the UN to show that the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. His source saying the UN designates the PKK a terror organization is wrong. An other user in the discussion agrees with me too. What is the solution here? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)'''
 * You reported me because I refused to read the lengthy UN documents?. BTW, I have replied to you when I found the message on the talk page and I didnrt revert any further. I went and replied to your comment. I didnt want to revert the guy who reverted me and I dont know who that editor who reverted him. I don't even have that article in my watchlist. I cited the Euronews for the UN designation.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You included wrong info even after I informed you the info was wrong and you refused to read the UN source stating the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. And it is not the first time you don't read a source and just revert. See the discussion here. I just want to know where I can report this clearly wrongful editing, so we can get to a consensus. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the OR was the part when you added that Switzerland only designates terrorist groups if they are designated by the UN and then cited a UN document saying it doesnt say that the PKK is designated and then saying in the lead section that Switzerland doesnt designates the PKK although the whole European Union designates it as a terrorist group. Notice what my comment says and what your reply is. I talked about using primary sources like UN documents which are hard-to-reach and using secondary sources like Euronews which explicitly says that the PKK has been designated as a terrorist group by the UN. Also the UN document doesnt say that the PKK is not listed. It just doesnt mention it and thats not the full list of designated terrorist groups by the UN. The PKK has been designated as a terrorist group since the 80s. --SharabSalam (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * you don't mention Switzerland in the edit. Nor do I in the whole talk. The topic of the main discussion is if the UN designates the PKK as a terror organization. A minor discussion currently resolved was the part of the EU. For your insistence to add the info that the PKK is a designated terror organization by the UN, and your refusal to read the UN source saying the opposite, I reported you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , in that "edit" or comment I didn't mention OR yet you said above and in the reply that I said original research. I was talking about this . And BTW, using primary sources does most of the time count as OR. The UN source does not support what you are saying. It doesn't say that the UN doesn't designate the PKK as a terrorist group. The UN document can't prove that the PKK is not designated as a terrorist group. It doesn't mention all terrorist groups that are designated by the UN and it doesn't mention the PKK. If a reliable secondary source says that the UN has designated the PKK as a terrorist group, then, of course, I am not going to search in the lengthy, hard-to-reach UN documents just to see if the UN has issued a statement saying that it designates the PKK as a terrorist group.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

. Continuous edits only count as one revert, which in this case amounted to three reverts in total. El_C 14:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:103.59.38.34 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Do not edit war */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* About 300 New Type-59 Tanks */"


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. This appears to be number-changing vandalism from a variety of IPs. The talk page has no contributions from IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Launeaau reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: 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 Tejasvi Surya. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting "controversies" as section header, despite concerns raised at WP:BLPN. The user has not provided any edit summaries or responses. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ferdeline reported by User:Wwwhatsup (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I think the situation here is fairly self-evident. User:Federline joined Wikipedia for the purpose of editing this article, the subject of which is currently the subject of a controversy. I deleted most of their edits as POV and, since it needed help, rewrote the article. User:Federline recognized me, and reverted based not on content but COI. I do have a close relationship to the subject, but am not an employee. I have done my best to stay within NPOV. I could unrevert again, which would be sure to get a response that would violate 3RR. I could appeal to other editors. I think it better to ask that an impartial admin step in. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Regardless of any WP:COI that may exist, there is a risk of WP:ADVOCACY. I hope that User:Ferdeline won't continue to cite his own tweets as a source. Either party should feel free to voluntarily divulge any personal connections they may have to the Internet Society or its chapters. But making such a revelation for another person risks WP:OUTING, which is blockable. Ferdeline is warned against personal attacks, such as 'deeply dishonest edits'. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston (talk), thanks for your comments. I am new to Wikipedia so my apologies if I am not meant to be responding here. I did not intend to personally attack Wwwhatsup. I just wanted to point out the conflict of interest. I do not think that someone who has been a long-term contractor/employee/vendor of an organization can be a neutral editor of its Wiki page. However, I would like to bring to your attention that Wwwhatsup has 'outed' me in a public Facebook group by my full legal name. I do not want to link to the post here as it will identify them by their name too. How should I send this to an admin? Thank you. Ferdeline (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the person behind the User:Wwwhatsup account outed you on Facebook that is not a concern for us here. We only care about outing on Wikipedia. If you have some personal connection yourself to the Internet Society, it would be good to make that known. You do seem to have strong opinions about the sale of the Public Interest Registry by the Internet Society. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:122.170.21.91 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Warnings)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 931055550 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained rollback abuse"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 931055088 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained rollback abuse"
 * 4)  "I provided reasonable explanations for all edits"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Chandala. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Chandala. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Is OP a bot or something? Regardless of being unresponsive, this user is clearly abusing WP:ROLLBACK and this user-right should be taken away from him. He is re-adding this source which is not even supporting the information and also reinstating self-published source like Patridge publishing. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is IP a registered editor who is hiding because they're making controversial changes to an issue they're bonded to? (Not a real question, simply illustrating that it's nonconstructive to simply toss around labels.) At any rate, if you look closer, it's not rollback but TW. I simply patrol pages, looking for vandalisms such as the removal of referenced material without discussion on article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing unsourced content, content unsupported by reference and removing self-published source does not constitute 'vandalism'. You need to slow down with your reverts. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. This dispute is heading toward blocks if people continue to make large changes without getting consensus first on the talk page. You could ask for opinions at WT:INDIA if you need wider participation. To an outsider, it is not really clear what the dispute is about. There is a claim of unsourced material but I don't know what part is unsourced. The IP is claiming rollback abuse but neither of Ifnord's changes is marked as a rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


 * Comments:

This user making disruptive edits. Possible a sockpuppet and cursing me in Turkish " salakmisin lan sen? " (are you an idiot?) Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Beshogur, please try to notify this editor. (The link to their talk page is still red). If you don't manage to get a response, I am willing to try semiprotection. The alternative is a block of Special:Contributions/2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a/64. This person appears to have some knowledge, but the personal attack isn't acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected 6 months due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. This might be the same person as Sockpuppet investigations/Mar400r/Archive. This editor was known for posting about Turkic minorities in various countries. They had over 50 named socks. One of the socks who edited this article was SyrioTurkicHuman last May. Page was also edited by a sock of Joohnny braavoo1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Agent.registry reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit war continues on 16 December 2019
 * 2) diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
 * 3) diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
 * 4)  "Added multiple issues template."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 930741939 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 930708898 by Austronesier (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 930709400 by Austronesier (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 930709273 by Austronesier (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 930631112 by Austronesier (talk)"
 * 10)  "/* Morphology */corrected format type."
 * 11)  "Added update needed for the section  as the content is not up-to-date."
 * 12)  "added not verified as it is misleading."
 * 13)  "minor grammatical error."
 * 14)  "removed noun as no content was added."
 * 15)  "removed duplicate entry."
 * 16)  "added citation needed template."
 * 17)  "Added reliability template."
 * 18)  "Added multiple issues template."
 * 19)  "added citation needed template."
 * 20)  "grammatical error rectified."
 * 21)  "removed contents as it was based on munda.As of my knowledge,santal language came to India from the north east region and this content talks about munda language.So some discussion is required.((talk
 * 1)  "Added reliability template."
 * 2)  "Added multiple issues template."
 * 3)  "added citation needed template."
 * 4)  "grammatical error rectified."
 * 5)  "removed contents as it was based on munda.As of my knowledge,santal language came to India from the north east region and this content talks about munda language.So some discussion is required.((talk
 * 1)  "removed contents as it was based on munda.As of my knowledge,santal language came to India from the north east region and this content talks about munda language.So some discussion is required.((talk


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Santali language. (TW)"


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


 * 1)  "Attempt to resolve"
 * 2)  "Second attempt to resolve"


 * Comments:

This person doesn't even know how the "Multiple issues" maintenance template works. Which has been explained by me and User:Austronesier in the edit summaries and their talk page more than once. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeps edit warring, . Doesn't respond in talkpage . Keeps unnecessarily warning me of 3RR instead only after my first revert and then edit wars in my talkpage too . This person obviously has WP:CIR issues if they do not know the usage of Template:Multiple issues which has been explained by me and other users many times. We have specifically told them not to use it to show their grievances with the article, which is not the intended purpose of the "Multiple issues" template. Instead they keep on adding their own POV on how the article is unreliable and stuff. Their exact wording in the template "Sources and demographic data are not up-to-date.Also,some citations are invalid or make no sense." as seen in this edit. To note, an update template has already been placed in the respective demographics section and an "unreliable sources" tag on the lead. That makes usage of the Multiple templae totally unjust, but the user seems adamant on it and keeps edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also deleted my talk in the talk page here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can confirm 's observations. This is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. –Austronesier (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at this recent comment by Agent.registry. The aweful usage of a template along with snark comments and usage of slangs in the comment makes a clear case of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indef by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:113.30.156.69 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added reference, as asked by a user."
 * 2)  "Gauquelin asked the committee to remove athletes who didn't meet the criteria of "eminence" Link - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.7941&rep=rep1&type=pdf"
 * 3)  "https://www.skepsis.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/kurtz-etal.pdf - The original paper by Gauquelins opponents that says Gauquelin wanted some athletes on grounds of eminence. Anyone who reverts this edit, EXPLAIN."
 * 4)  "Gauquelin asked the committee to remove athletes who didn't meet the criteria of "eminence" Link - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.7941&rep=rep1&type=pdf"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Accusations of Removal of Subjects on grounds of Eminence */ exclude"
 * 2)   "/* Accusations of Removal of Subjects on grounds of Eminence */ re"

Notified:. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. The IP user has also been triggering the edit filter by removing sourced content from other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Cathytalledo reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted; Unsourced information; Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Reorganize and added deleted information."
 * 3)  "Excess information"
 * 4)  "Useless information"
 * 1)  "Useless information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Miss Universe Philippines. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Consistently deletes duly sourced information and insists on her own edit, calling other editor's edits vandalism when all contents supplied by editors are duly sourced, as could be seen here. This user has never tried to engage in dispute resolution, and instead has continuously blanked warnings on their talk page, as could be seen here, here, here, and here. They also copied and pasted a warning a placed on their wall, to my own wall, complete with my own signature, as could be seen here and here.

I have tried placing a warning on this user several times, hoping they would engage in edit and dispute resolution, but to no avail. This has already gone beyond my and other users' final warning. I hope you could look into this contributor and employ necessary action. Thanks so much. Migsmigss (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. This user edit wars, makes false charges of vandalism and removes sources without explanation. For example, here she removes several sources and then in the edit summary complains about unsourced information. No use of the article talk page whatever. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:173.176.159.21 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 931066524 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Noy true. BLP guidelines stipulate contentious stuff must be removed. Any addition requires consensus. No, your addition wasn't there about a month ago. please consult BLP guidelines and the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 931020584 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) You need consensus. Please consult the talk page, topic already covered there in great details and length. WP:BLP"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 930948724 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) Talk page was crystal clear about adding either conspiracy theorist or right wing. get consent first for addition. please consult the talk page. subject already devlopped in length and a vote occured on this specificly"
 * 4)  "removed reference to unsubstanciated smear piece"


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


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


 * Comments:

Offered the opportunity to self-revert - they did, and then promptly undid their own self-revert. User was previously blocked 48h for disruptive editing on American politics pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 10 days by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

blp guidelines my friend. apply them or lose by them. With love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Theofilos1964 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Sock indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide "
 * 2)  "/* Citizenship and legal residence */ethnicity = French people | speakers = 76.8 million worldwide"
 * "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)
 * "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)
 * "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)
 * "| speakers = 76.8 million worldwide | speakers2 = An estimated 274 million French speakers (L1 plus L2; 2014)


 * warnings
 * 1)   "/* Population figures */ new section"
 * 2)   "you need to cite it"
 * 3)   "A count of people who speak the French language is not the same as a count of French people"
 * 4)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on French people."


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reverting to unsourced figure and disruptive editing by changing article definition without consensus. Similar behaviour on Bajuni people. Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User: Paradise Chronicle reported by User:175.203.103.219 (Result: Filer 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: [diff]

Comments:

User violate the 3RR within 24 hours. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I have been attempting to contain of a major vandal here is his edit historial. He is the same who reported me here. He removed all things mentioning Kurdish or Kurds. I and Semsuri have tried to contain the damage and revert as much as we could.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Kurdish names were not sourced. And in the Diyarbakır article I have two times said to you to use the talk page to explain but you just ignored it.. 175.203.103.219 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on the specific article or the 3RR but the onus to open a discussion is on you since you are the one making major changes to the lead (see WP:BRD). Though I would note that Paradise should've explained themselves in the edit summaries better. Gotitbro (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This report is ridiculous. The IP has been editing disruptively and now reports an user who has spent a lot of time cleaning up his traces. --Semsurî (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be noted that the IP has been disruptively editing articles on Turkish places with Kurdish majority populaces, wholesale removing Kurdish place names from ledes while ostensibly asking for sources. The IP user could've simply tagged the names as such or even added sources themselves (no dearth of Kurdish language sources for Kurdish settlements [even official ones] as demonstrated by ). This can only be termed as bad faith editing on part of the IP to remove Kurdish names from ledes of articles. Then to go report editors who have tried to undo the disruptions by even adding sources for these place names is simply a laughable attempt by the IP. Gotitbro (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have told him at the beginning it would be better if he'd mark the info with source needed instead of removing the info. That Diyarbakir is the Capital of Diyarbakir province was already present in the lead where you wanted to add it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:175.203.103.219 has been blocked for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem, who may not be aware of this report. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

,, seems that we have a sock puppet -->. This editor picks up where left. --Semsurî (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @ and : Just as an fyi; I am currently traveling and will be online irregularly, if at all, over the next few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer of this report, Special:Contributions/175.203.103.219, has been blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing by User:Ad Orientem per an AIV report, probably this one. The filer of the AIV, User:Paradise Chronicle, says that the IP ''removes all references to Kurdish or Kurds. At least as far as I have observed. Me and Semsuri are trying to contain the damage. (keep it short)". EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:BarcrMac (Result: Stale, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * " and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years".
 * 1) 15:30, 13 December 2019
 * 2) 10:52, 13 December 2019
 * 3) 18:13, 4 December 2019
 * 4) 17:14, 29 November 2019
 * 5) 05:50, 29 November 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
 * " shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"
 * 1) 15:30, 13 December 2019
 * 2) 10:52, 13 December 2019
 * 3) 08:20, 6 December 2019
 * 4) 18:19, 4 December 2019

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

Comments:

Continuing edit warring in an article that has revert restrictions. The bold edits show continuing to edit war of these edits after being blocked (for the second time) for edit warring in this page.Barca (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I was blocked on Dec. 10th because I engaged in edit waring. Barca, the user who initiated this report was also blocked shortly after. The reason why me, Barca and two other editors were blocked was due to Barca's edit on December 9th. As soon as my block period was over, I stated an apology in the talk page of the article in dispute and restored the article to the version that Barca and the other two editors insisted on during the edit war. Here is the diff between Barca's last edit on Dec. 9th and my edit right after my block period was over that shows they are the same word for word. Since then, I have been discussing things in the talk page and also have asked Barca in his talk page to help come up with a list of things he wants in the article so that the two of us can figure out a middle-ground solution.Kazemita1 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

p.s. The two sentences that Barca marked in green in this report existed in Barca's last edit on December 9th as well as in the version of the article proposed by two other editors on December 10th.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User Ypatch said they did not endorse these edits, so please don't drag them into this. As soon as the block was over, you added text that had been reverted during the edit war which did not belong to the long-standing version of the article. The diffs presented outline this. Barca (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not name any users (but you just did!). And I have addressed your last concern here in the talk page of the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – No block for Dec. 13 violations on Dec. 19 unless they are blatant and easy to see. But still, I'm warning User:Kazemita1 for making edits for which consensus is not clear. Merely making arguments in your own edit summary is not enough evidence of consensus. I would like to see a clear agreement by others on the talk page that your change has support. The argument that the material 'used to be in the article at one time', or that 'Joe Smith supported this version in a past dispute' surely doesn't prove that it enjoys consensus to go in right now. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:113.30.156.69 reported by User:VQuakr, 2nd complaint (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  "Neutral point of view"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WP:REDFLAG edit by USR:Quakr */ re"


 * Comments:

Back to edit warring within a couple of hours after their last block for the same behavior and same content (at Astrology and science) expired. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous AN3. Notification. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Continued edit warring on the topic of astrology with no policy-based response to the complaints. The user's edits appear to reflect WP:ADVOCACY. Previously blocked at this noticeboard. The Mars effect page is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

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

Comments:

This a repeat of a previous request, because the behaviour of user Factsinwiki didn't change. Late november, he engaged in similar actions (diff, diff, diff e diff), but the page was protected and that was that. A discussion in the talk page was open while the article was protected in older to solve the situation. The user in question, didn't take part in the discussion. He later added a topic outside of the discussion (was called on that), not adressing the issues in the discussion or presenting sources. Anyways, he was first reverted and i left him a message directing him to the discussion, but he deleted the message (which i interpretate as an anknolodgement of the post) and continue with the WP:EW. Since he has a history of deleting messages and since this is his second EW/3RR violation in less than an month, i'm taking this situation here for evaluation. Coltsfan (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the 23 November report in the archives, so I dug it out of the history and manually archived it at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive399. It was removed by the filer before being closed by an admin so it disappeared from the system. It does appear that Factsinwiki doesn't like the Alliance being described as far-right. Instead he wants it to be 'right-wing to far-right'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Factsinwiki made three reverts this time around (Dec 18-19), after a previous spot of edit warring on 23 November that led to the article being protected by User:MelanieN. Each time he was making the same changes. There has been a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Alliance for Brazil (about 'Far-right' versus 'Right-wing or far right'), opened by Coltsfan in which Factsinwiki couldn't persuade anyone to support his version. I hope Factsinwiki will respond here to explain why he shouldn't be blocked for long-term edit warring. As an alternative he could agree to stop this behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring, after perceiving Factsinwiki's lack of response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Foption reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 931571287 by Pietadè (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 931528480 by RGloucester (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 931522699 by DagosNavy (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 931505448 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 5)  "see Talk"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Belligerents versus suppliers in infobox */ r"


 * Comments:

This editor seems to be present only to disrupt Wikipedia, and does not seem to want to engage in talk page discussion. He has clearly violated 3RR, despite a warning. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:86.8.200.145 reported by User:CLCStudent (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Dude stop ignoring what I’m saying I literally linked an article which states Gabriella Rossetti is a version of Gabriel the Devil Hunter and this doesn’t constitute as original research as it’s very much confirmed it’s a female version of Gabriel Rossetti as they literally just added La on the end and Rossetti can either be spelled like that or Rossetti"
 * 2)  "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
 * 3)  "I don’t need to take this to the talk page as it is confirmed to be Gabriel Rossetti, just look at the article I linked, clearly cites the deadline article and elaborates further about helstrom being Gabriel the Devil Hunter https://comicsheatingup.net/2019/10/10/hulus-helstrom-characters-cast-revealed/"
 * 4)  "Can you just leave it alone and stop vandalising it, her name is Gabriella Rossetti and Gabriel the Devil hunters real name is Gabriel Rossetti they just added an la on the end of Gabriel to signify that it’s a female version, and anyway the devil hunter is just a title it’s not his actual name as stated before."
 * 1)  "Can you just leave it alone and stop vandalising it, her name is Gabriella Rossetti and Gabriel the Devil hunters real name is Gabriel Rossetti they just added an la on the end of Gabriel to signify that it’s a female version, and anyway the devil hunter is just a title it’s not his actual name as stated before."


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


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


 * Comments:

She was initially warring under user:86.8.201.145 and then changed to this current IP address. CLCStudent (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected 3 days by User:Anarchyte. But in my opinion the IP is trying to insert WP:OR about the identity of the character Gabriel Rossetti. At least the page protection has stimulated a talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this until you pinged me. I looked through the revisions and rather than take a side I just protected it.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1007:B12C:DE74:28A1:30F5:66E2:2CC reported by User:Upsidedown Keyboard (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2019 */Simplified repetitive section. Every single scoring play need not be listed, that is not readable. Only notable things that happened in the game should be"
 * 2)  "/* 2019 */Removed sentence about a game from a different year. No reason to include info about a different game in this section"
 * 3)  "/* Notable games */This is an improvement to the notable games section. There was nothing noteworthy about the 2019 game. There is no improvement that can be made to make a non-notable game become notable."
 * 4)  "This game is run of the mill, not noteworthy. A game summary need not be written every year. Even if this game were noteworthy, this summary is drivel"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Blanked a section, has been warring over it with multiple people. Possible sock of 136.181.195.23, which from WHOIS/Geolocation, appears to be their place of work. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)